4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Clinical signs, evaluation of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, and assessment of pulmonary function in horses with inflammatory respiratory disease

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY RESEARCH
卷 62, 期 4, 页码 538-546

出版社

AMER VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.2460/ajvr.2001.62.538

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective-To evaluate the association among clinical signs, results of cytologic evaluation of bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid, and measures of pulmonary function in horses with inflammatory respiratory disease. Animals-9 healthy horses, 5 horses with inflammatory airway disease (IAD), and 9 horses with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Procedures-Clinical examination, lung function tests, and BAL were performed on each horse. Results-Standard lung mechanics of horses with exacerbated COPD differed significantly from those of healthy horses; however, there were few differences among horses with IAD, horses with COPD during remission, and healthy horses. Most variables for forced expiration (FE) in horses with COPD or IAD differed significantly from those for healthy horses. Results of clinical examination had low to moderate sensitivity and predictive values for a diagnosis of COPD (range, 67 to 80%). Results of FE tests had high sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values for a diagnosis of COPD (79 to 100%), and results of standard lung mechanics tests had low sensitivity and predictive values (22 to 69%). Percentage of neutrophils in BAL fluid was highly sensitive (100%) but moderately specific (64%) for a diagnosis of COPD. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance-Clinical examination is moderately accurate for establishing a diagnosis of COPD. Forced expiration tests can specifically detect early signs of airway obstruction in horses with COPD and IAD that may otherwise be inapparent. Cytologic evaluation of BAL fluid allows early detection of inflammatory respiratory disease, but it is not specific for CORD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据