Immunohistochemistry (IHC) of tissue samples is considered the gold standard for diagnosing feline infectious peritonitis (FIP), and, in cats without body cavity effusion, IHC is the only method available to establish definitive antemortem diagnosis. However, IHC requires invasive tissue sample collection. We evaluated sensitivity and specificity of an immunocytochemical assay of fine-needle aspirates (FNAs) of mesenteric lymph nodes that can be obtained noninvasively by ultrasound-guided aspiration to diagnose FIP. FNAs of mesenteric lymph nodes were obtained postmortem from 41 cats suspected of having FIP based on clinical and/or laboratory findings. FIP was confirmed immunohistochemically in 30 cats. In the other 11 cats, a disease other than FIP, which explained the clinical signs, was diagnosed histopathologically. Immunocytochemistry (ICC) was performed as an avidin-biotin complex method using a monoclonal anti-FCoV IgG 2A. Sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values (NPV, PPV, respectively) including 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were determined. ICC was positive in 17 of 30 cats with FIP, but also in 1 of 11 control cats that was diagnosed with lymphoma. Sensitivity of ICC was 53% (95% CI: 34-72); specificity 91% (95% CI: 59-100); NPV 42% (95% CI: 22-63); and PPV 94% (95% CI: 71-100). In a lethal disease such as FIP, specificity is most important in order to avoid euthanasia of unaffected cats. Given that a false-positive result occurred and FIP was correctly detected in only approximately half of the cases of FIP, ICC of mesenteric lymph node FNA alone cannot reliably confirm or exclude FIP, but can be a helpful test in conjunction with other diagnostic measures.

Objective To evaluate dogs treated with hemodialysis for severe metaldehyde intoxication and to compare them with conventionally‐managed patients. Design Retrospective study (2012–2017). Setting University teaching hospital. Animals Data from 18 dogs with severe metaldehyde intoxication were analyzed. Eleven dogs were treated with intermittent hemodialysis and 7 managed conventionally. Interventions None. Measurement and main results Metaldehyde poisoning was diagnosed based on clinical signs and toxicological analysis or presence of turquoise material in the gastrointestinal content. Clinical signs, additional treatments, dialysis prescription, duration of anesthesia and hospitalization, complications, and outcome were documented. Results were analyzed by t‐test, Mann–Whitney U‐test, and Chi‐square test. P < 0.05 was considered significant. Dialysis was performed for median (range) 180 min (150–420 min) with median of 2.28 L/kg (1.66–4.48 L/kg) blood volume processed. In the hemodialysis group, anesthesia was discontinued at a median of 3.0 hours (1.5–6.7 h) after starting dialysis. The conventional‐group received general anesthesia for a median of 17.5 hours (7.0–30.5 h). No further anticonvulsive treatment was necessary for the hemodialysis group. Time to hospital discharge was shorter in dialyzed dogs (median 18 h; 15–41 h) compared to conventionally treated dogs (median 89 h; 61–168 h; P = 0.0014). Aspiration pneumonia was reported in 5 conventionally treated dogs and none of the dialyzed dogs (P = 0.001). Five dialyzed dogs developed hematoma at the dialysis catheter site. One dog in each group was euthanized. Conclusion Hemodialysis significantly decreases the requirement for anesthesia and length of hospitalization in dogs with metaldehyde intoxication. Aspiration pneumonia occurred less often in dialyzed patients. Prospective studies are warranted to confirm the clinical utility of hemodialysis in dogs with metaldehyde poisoning.

Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder affecting 0.6–0.75% of dogs in veterinary practice. Treatment is frequently complicated by the occurrence of drug-resistant epilepsy and cluster seizures in dogs with idiopathic epilepsy. Only few studies are available to guide treatment choices beyond licensed veterinary drugs. The aim of the study was to compare antiseizure efficacy and tolerability of two add-on treatment strategies in dogs with drug-resistant idiopathic epilepsy. The study design was a prospective, open-label, non-blinded, comparative treatment trial. Treatment success was defined as a 3-fold extension of the longest baseline interseizure interval and to a minimum of 3 months. To avoid prolonged adherence to a presumably ineffective treatment strategy, dog owners could leave the study after the third day with generalized seizures if the interseizure interval failed to show a relevant increase. Twenty-six dogs (mean age 5.5 years, mean seizure frequency 4/month) with drug-resistant idiopathic epilepsy and a history of cluster seizures were included. Dogs received either add-on treatment with pregabalin (PGB) 4 mg/kg twice daily (14 dogs) or a dose increase in levetiracetam (LEV) add-on treatment (12 dogs). Thirteen dogs in the PGB group had drug levels within the therapeutic range for humans. Two dogs in the PGB group (14.3%; 2/14) and one dog in the LEV group (8.3%; 1/12) achieved treatment success with long seizure-free intervals from 122 to 219 days but then relapsed to their early seizure frequency 10 months after the study inclusion. The overall low success rates with both treatment strategies likely reflect a real-life situation in canine drug-resistant idiopathic epilepsy in everyday veterinary practice. These results delineate the need for research on better pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatment strategies in dogs with drug-resistant epilepsy.