Comparison of 2 collection methods for cerebrospinal fluid analysis from standing, sedate adult horses
Abstract Background Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis is an important component of the evaluation of horses with neurologic disease. Lumbosacral (LS) centesis is routine, but CSF is also collected from the space between the first and second cervical vertebrae (C1‐C2). Objectives To compare collecti...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2020-03-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1111/jvim.15702 |
| _version_ | 1818381900257951744 |
|---|---|
| author | Hayley Chidlow Steeve Giguère Melinda Camus Bridgette Wells Elizabeth Howerth Roy Berghaus Erin McConachie Beasley |
| author_facet | Hayley Chidlow Steeve Giguère Melinda Camus Bridgette Wells Elizabeth Howerth Roy Berghaus Erin McConachie Beasley |
| author_sort | Hayley Chidlow |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis is an important component of the evaluation of horses with neurologic disease. Lumbosacral (LS) centesis is routine, but CSF is also collected from the space between the first and second cervical vertebrae (C1‐C2). Objectives To compare collection times, CSF cytology results, and equine protozoal myelitis (EPM) titers of CSF collected from the C1‐C2 and LS sites. Animals Fifteen university‐owned adult horses with no evidence of neurologic disease, and 9 horses with signs of neurologic disease: 3 university‐owned and 6 client‐owned. Methods Prospective study. Cerebrospinal fluid collection from the LS space and C1‐C2 space of each horse was performed in randomized order. Continuous data were analyzed using mixed‐effects linear models and count data using mixed‐effects negative binomial regression. Statistical significance was set at P < .05. Results Cerebrospinal fluid collected from the C1‐C2 site had a significantly lower mean protein concentration (49 [95% CI: 43‐55.8] mg/dL C1‐C2 versus 52.1 [95% CI: 45.7‐59.3] mg/dL LS; P = .03) and red blood cell count (6 [95% CI: 2‐16] cells/μL versus 33 [95% CI: 13‐81] cells/μL; P = .02). Collection time, total nucleated cell count, EPM titers, and serum:CSF EPM titer ratios were not significantly different between collection sites. Conclusions and Clinical Importance Cerebrospinal fluid from the C1‐C2 space provides an acceptable alternative to LS CSF collection with decreased likelihood of clinically important blood contamination of samples. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-14T02:41:55Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-e76afb4dc1794b08bf2988ea5c64d8d4 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 0891-6640 1939-1676 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-14T02:41:55Z |
| publishDate | 2020-03-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine |
| spelling | doaj.art-e76afb4dc1794b08bf2988ea5c64d8d42022-12-21T23:19:59ZengWileyJournal of Veterinary Internal Medicine0891-66401939-16762020-03-0134297297810.1111/jvim.15702Comparison of 2 collection methods for cerebrospinal fluid analysis from standing, sedate adult horsesHayley Chidlow0Steeve Giguère1Melinda Camus2Bridgette Wells3Elizabeth Howerth4Roy Berghaus5Erin McConachie Beasley6Department of Large Animal Medicine and Surgery University of Georgia, College of Veterinary Medicine GeorgiaDepartment of Large Animal Medicine and Surgery University of Georgia, College of Veterinary Medicine GeorgiaDepartment of Pathology University of Georgia, College of Veterinary Medicine Athens GeorgiaDepartment of Pathology University of Georgia, College of Veterinary Medicine Athens GeorgiaDepartment of Pathology University of Georgia, College of Veterinary Medicine Athens GeorgiaDepartment of Population Health University of Georgia, College of Veterinary Medicine Athens GeorgiaDepartment of Large Animal Medicine and Surgery University of Georgia, College of Veterinary Medicine GeorgiaAbstract Background Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis is an important component of the evaluation of horses with neurologic disease. Lumbosacral (LS) centesis is routine, but CSF is also collected from the space between the first and second cervical vertebrae (C1‐C2). Objectives To compare collection times, CSF cytology results, and equine protozoal myelitis (EPM) titers of CSF collected from the C1‐C2 and LS sites. Animals Fifteen university‐owned adult horses with no evidence of neurologic disease, and 9 horses with signs of neurologic disease: 3 university‐owned and 6 client‐owned. Methods Prospective study. Cerebrospinal fluid collection from the LS space and C1‐C2 space of each horse was performed in randomized order. Continuous data were analyzed using mixed‐effects linear models and count data using mixed‐effects negative binomial regression. Statistical significance was set at P < .05. Results Cerebrospinal fluid collected from the C1‐C2 site had a significantly lower mean protein concentration (49 [95% CI: 43‐55.8] mg/dL C1‐C2 versus 52.1 [95% CI: 45.7‐59.3] mg/dL LS; P = .03) and red blood cell count (6 [95% CI: 2‐16] cells/μL versus 33 [95% CI: 13‐81] cells/μL; P = .02). Collection time, total nucleated cell count, EPM titers, and serum:CSF EPM titer ratios were not significantly different between collection sites. Conclusions and Clinical Importance Cerebrospinal fluid from the C1‐C2 space provides an acceptable alternative to LS CSF collection with decreased likelihood of clinically important blood contamination of samples.https://doi.org/10.1111/jvim.15702centesiscervicalequinelumbosacralneurologic diagnostics |
| spellingShingle | Hayley Chidlow Steeve Giguère Melinda Camus Bridgette Wells Elizabeth Howerth Roy Berghaus Erin McConachie Beasley Comparison of 2 collection methods for cerebrospinal fluid analysis from standing, sedate adult horses Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine centesis cervical equine lumbosacral neurologic diagnostics |
| title | Comparison of 2 collection methods for cerebrospinal fluid analysis from standing, sedate adult horses |
| title_full | Comparison of 2 collection methods for cerebrospinal fluid analysis from standing, sedate adult horses |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of 2 collection methods for cerebrospinal fluid analysis from standing, sedate adult horses |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of 2 collection methods for cerebrospinal fluid analysis from standing, sedate adult horses |
| title_short | Comparison of 2 collection methods for cerebrospinal fluid analysis from standing, sedate adult horses |
| title_sort | comparison of 2 collection methods for cerebrospinal fluid analysis from standing sedate adult horses |
| topic | centesis cervical equine lumbosacral neurologic diagnostics |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1111/jvim.15702 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT hayleychidlow comparisonof2collectionmethodsforcerebrospinalfluidanalysisfromstandingsedateadulthorses AT steevegiguere comparisonof2collectionmethodsforcerebrospinalfluidanalysisfromstandingsedateadulthorses AT melindacamus comparisonof2collectionmethodsforcerebrospinalfluidanalysisfromstandingsedateadulthorses AT bridgettewells comparisonof2collectionmethodsforcerebrospinalfluidanalysisfromstandingsedateadulthorses AT elizabethhowerth comparisonof2collectionmethodsforcerebrospinalfluidanalysisfromstandingsedateadulthorses AT royberghaus comparisonof2collectionmethodsforcerebrospinalfluidanalysisfromstandingsedateadulthorses AT erinmcconachiebeasley comparisonof2collectionmethodsforcerebrospinalfluidanalysisfromstandingsedateadulthorses |