Concordância entre métodos de diagnóstico para bacteriúria em cães

• Ano de defesa: 2023
• Autor(a) principal: Soares, Ana Bárbara Uchoa
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• dARK ID: ark:/26339/001300000tf4f
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Federal de Santa Maria; Brasil; Medicina Veterinária; UFSM; Programa de Pós-Graduação em Medicina Veterinária; Centro de Ciências Rurais
• Palavras-chave em Português: Urinálise; Sedimento urinário corado; Cultura bacteriana; Sensibilidade; Bacteriúria; Gram; Urinalysis; Stained urine sediment; Bacterial culture; Sensitivity; Bacteriuria; CNPQ::CIENCIAS AGRARIAS::MEDICINA VETERINARIA
• Link de acesso: http://repositorio.ufsm.br/handle/1/29357

In veterinary medicine, the diagnosis of bacteriuria is commonly based only on the evaluation of unstained urinary sediment, this method is not the most appropriate, as amorphous particles present in the urine can be confused with bacteria. Therefore, the urine sample of patients with suspected urinary tract infection should be sent for bacteriological culture, which is considered the “gold standard” for diagnosis. However, due to the longer time required to obtain results, this procedure is not always performed. In this context, carrying out the analysis of stained urinary sediment is a potentially more accurate method than the assessment of non-stained sediment. Thus, this study aims to investigate whether the analysis of stained urinary sediments is an efficient screening method for the identification of bacteriuria when compared to microbiological culture. The urine samples used came from the routine samples of the Laboratory of Veterinary Clinical Analysis (LCV) located at the University Veterinary Hospital (HVU) of the Federal University of Santa Maria (UFSM) after the urinalysis in which the physical analyses, chemical analysis and analysis of slides of unstained and Gramstained urinary sediment, included in this study, collected by the urination method with the eism catheter. There was exclusion of Exception with less than 5 ml and patients under treatment with antibiotics. 10ml of urine was used for urinalysis, while 1ml of urine was used for quantitative bacteriological culture at the Bacteriology Laboratory (LABAC) at UFSM. For the technique of urine collection by catheterization, 55% (n=40) of the results were detected as false positives for analysis of unstained SU (Urinary Sediment) and 2.5% (n=40) of the results were evaluated as false negative for stained SU analysis. Finally, for spontaneous micturition urine collection, 23.3% (n=60) of the results were detected as false positives in the analysis of the US not detected and 1.66% (n=60) of the results observed in the SU were detected as a false negative. The SU Gram color technique significantly increased the differentiation between detection of amorphous substances and bacteriuria in dog urine samples, suggesting the applicability of this color in laboratory routine.