Urinalysis aids in screening asymptomatic animals, providing supportive information during diagnostic evaluations, establishing a definitive diagnosis, and monitoring animals. Routine urinalysis (UA) is an integral diagnostic test in the clinical evaluation of diseased animals as well as in healthy animals as part of a comprehensive preventative medicine program. Clinicians should be aware of inherent variability in this clinical variable when analyzing results. Conclusions and Clinical ImportanceĬlinically important variation occurs in USG in healthy animals and might impact clinical decision-making when diagnostic cutoff points are utilized. The mean coefficient of variance across all 6 time points was 15.4% (SD 8.97%). The within-week difference between the minimum and maximum USG was less than over the complete 2-week study (0.009 for week 1 and 0.010 for week 2). The mean difference between the minimum and maximum USG for each dog was 0.015 (SD, 0.007). Intraindividual USG was variable over the course of the study. All measurements were made using the same Misco digital refractometer. Urine samples were acquired immediately upon waking and before any ingestion of liquids, food, or exertion of physical activity in the dogs. Sample collection was distributed evenly throughout the week. Three urine samples were collected each week for a total of 6 samples per dog. Repeated USG measurements were performed over the course of 2 weeks. Methodsĭogs were deemed healthy based on clinical history and physical examination findings. One hundred three healthy client-owned dogs. To determine the intraindividual variability of first morning USG results in healthy dogs. These findings indicate hydration biomarkers should be selected by considering daily activities.Urine specific gravity (USG) is an integral part of the urinalysis and a key component of many clinical decisions, and fluctuations in USG have the potential to impact case management. Sosm, Usg and BMΔ exhibited validity in serial measurements. During exercise (ACT), Sosm and Vosm exhibited the highest sensitivity and specificity. At rest (PAS), only urinary indices increased in concert with body water loss. The efficacy of indices to detect dehydration 2% differed across treatments. Reference change values were validated for Sosm, Usg and BMΔ. During ACT, Vosm most effectively diagnosed dehydration 2% (sensitivity=86% specificity=91%), followed by Sosm (sensitivity=83% specificity=83%). During PAS, only Uosm, Uvol and Usg increased significantly (-1 and -2% BMΔ versus baseline). Significant between-treatment differences at -1% BMΔ were observed for Sosm (PAS, 296±4 ACT, 301±4 mOsm/kg) and Uosm (PAS, 895☒07 ACT, 661☑92 mOsm/kg). Investigators measured all biomarkers at each 1% BMΔ.Īverage mass loss during PAS was 1.4☐.3%, and 4.1☐.7% during ACT. During PAS, subjects sat quietly, and during ACT, participants cycled at 68☖% maximal heart rate. Twenty-three healthy men (age, 22☓ years mass, 77.3☑2.8 kg height, 179.9☘.8cm body fat, 10.6±4.5%) completed two randomized 5-h dehydration trials (36☑ ☌). Utilizing acute BMΔ as the reference standard, this research examined the efficacy of Sosm, Vosm, Uosm, Uvol and Usg, during passive (PAS) and active (ACT) heat exposure. As no hydration index has been shown to be valid in all circumstances, value exists in exploring novel biomarkers such as salivary osmolality (Vosm). Hydration state can be assessed via body mass change (BMΔ), serum and urine osmolality (Sosm, Uosm), urine-specific gravity (Usg) and urine volume (Uvol).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |