Vet Blog: Information and Advice from Dr. Eric Barchas, DVM
07/24/08
 Heart disease is very common in dogs. Most cases of heart disease in dogs are hereditary, rather than acquired. This means that, unlike in humans, obesity and a sedentary lifestyle are not major causes of heart disease in dogs (although obesity exacerbates heart disease in all species).
There are two major forms of heart disease in dogs. Small breeds are prone to valve disease. Valve disease causes the blood to flow incorrectly through the heart and lungs. Large breeds are prone to cardiomyopathy, a syndrome in which the muscles of the heart lose the ability to function normally. Either condition can lead to heart failure and death.
The mainstays of diagnosing canine heart disease have been physical exam, evaluation for irregular heart sounds known as murmurs, X-rays and echocardiography (ultrasound of the heart). Echocardiography is especially effective at diagnosing heart problems. However, in many cases the problem is not detected until it has been present for a very long time. And, as with all medical conditions, treatment for canine heart disease is most effective if the problem is detected early.
Fortunately, a paper in the May 15, 2008 Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association describes a new test that may soon become available to identify dogs with heart disease. The test would be a blood test that could be performed routinely on at-risk breeds.
The test would involve measuring the level of a peptide (a very small protein) in the blood. A recent study demonstrated that blood levels of the peptide reliably predict the presence and severity of heart disease in dogs.
It may be several years before any test involving the peptide is available for veterinarians. However, it is encouraging to know that in the future it may be possible to diagnose heart disease earlier and more easily in our canine friends.
The paper discussed in this post is Oyama, et al J Am Vet Med Assoc 2008;232:1496-1503
Image credit: Heikenwaelder Hugo. Image licensing information: CC
Image confession: it is a human heart. But the canine heart is anatomically similar.
See related Vet Blog entries:
07/22/08
 It has been a while since there has been any controversy on this blog. However, an article from a recent issue of Veterinary Economics may stir things up.
The terms of use of the hosting website prohibit me from both linking to the article and quoting directly from it. Please click on the link to see what the author (Melody Heath, DVM) has to say in her own words.
But, to paraphrase, here is her thesis. Shih Poos, Schnoodles, Labradoodles, Cockapoos and other dogs that are descended from two parents of different breeds are mutts. People who buy them are being ripped off. They are buying mixed-breed dogs (that always seem to be half Poodle) at purebred prices.
And she goes a step further. She claims that it is unethical to purchase a mixed-breed dog. Why pay $1500 for a mixed-breed dog when so many other mutts are languishing in shelters and facing euthanasia for lack of a home?
Do I agree? Partly. By definition, any dog that is not purebred is a mutt. So Dr. Heath is definitely right on that score. However, first generation mutts benefit from a phenomenon known as hybrid vigor. The principle of hybrid vigor states that the direct progeny of two inbred (read: purebred) parents will, on average, be heartier and more robust than either parent.
So, although Cocker Spaniels are prone to chronic ear infections and Poodles suffer disproportionately from heart disease, a first generation Cockapoo is less likely to develop either problem than his parents. And, his personality may be predictable–much like a purebred dog. Every Cockapoo I’ve met has been a really great dog.
Sadly, the benefits of hybrid vigor (and the predictable nature of personalities) dissipate in subsequent generations. Most geneticists would agree that if two Labradoodles mate their progeny will, definitively, be mutts.
What about the ethics of purchasing a “designer mutt” when shelter dogs are in need of homes? From the shelter dog’s point of view, the pedigree of the dog you purchase is irrelevant. If you want to save a shelter dog, don’t pay a breeder for any type of dog. Go to the pound.
Like any good argument, I can see a bit of logic to both sides of this one. I welcome your retorts and input in the comments section.
See related Vet Blog entries:
07/01/08
 An interesting message appeared in my inbox the other day. The message was sent by an organization that opposes a voter initiative scheduled to appear on the November ballot in California.
The ballot measure in question is the 2008 Farm Animal Initiative. An excerpt from the e-mail I received follows.
Californians for SAFE Food, a coalition of family farmers, veterinarians and consumers, which includes the National Animal Interest Alliance, California Farm Bureau Federation, California Women for Agriculture and many of the leading avian science and poultry experts in the nation, ask you to join us and oppose this dangerous initiative. (emphasis mine)
I did some research on the initiative. Here is a quote from the text of the ballot measure (link is PDF format).
The purpose of this Act is to prohibit the confinement of farm animals in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs.
To me, the standards set forth in the initiative sound quite reasonable. And I have a hunch that the overwhelming majority of Californians will see it the same way. I predict the initiative will pass by a landslide in November.
If you look at the website sponsored by the initiative’s opponents, you will see a list of veterinarians who have, indeed, endorsed the opposition. But a check of the sponsor’s site will reveal a much, much longer list of veterinarians who support the measure.
I recognize that the initiative may create a burden for California farmers. It may also lead to increased food prices.
But I, for one, am not happy that veterinarians as a group have been listed in mass e-mails as opponents of an initiative designed to promote humane farming practices–especially when it seems that most vets (myself included) support the measure.
For more information on the initiative, click on the links below.
Supporters’ website: Californians for Humane Farms
Opponents’ website: Californians for SAFE Food
See related Vet Blog entries:
06/22/08
My vet recently decided not to give out
prescriptions for online pet med services. He
claims they use “old” medications which can be
harmful. I wonder if he is more interested in
making a profit for himself off the meds than
giving a break to his patients. How can an online
supplier consciously sell old meds?
S H
Chicago, IL
My vet says that ordering from a well-known internet pharmacy is a
bad idea because you don’t know what you’re
getting. Is it really a bad source to order from,
or is the vet not wanting to lose money? Thanks so
much!!
Alison
Muscatine, IA
Veterinarians and online pharmacies have had a rocky relationship from the start.
When online pharmacies first started selling medicines, many vets were worried that their already slim profit margins (even though vet care is expensive, most of what you pay your vet ends up going to his suppliers, his landlord, his employees, utility companies, the IRS, and regulatory agencies) would be reduced by the loss of income-generating drug sales.
This concern has not panned out as expected. Well-managed veterinary hospitals do not derive much income from drug sales. In the hospitals where I have worked, medications were offered to clients more for their convenience than for our profit. And this makes sense. A veterinarian’s job is to manage the health of pets, not to sell drugs.
So why is there a lingering animosity between vets and online pharmacies?
To my knowledge, none of my patients has ever received an expired or ineffective medicine from an online pharmacy. But I have had conversations with representatives from drug manufacturing companies who assure me that this does happen. They also claim that some online pharmacies unwittingly distribute counterfeit medications that have no efficacy.
In my opinion, if you order from a reputable online pharmacy the odds of receiving expired or counterfeit medicines are low. Most of the drugs that I have seen dispensed from these pharmacies are perfectly fine.
However, I still have a bone or two to pick with many of the internet pharmacies. Working with them can be very frustrating.
For instance, one internet pharmacy habitually refuses to write instructions on the drugs it dispenses. If I send a prescription to the pharmacy and indicate that the medicine should be taken twice daily, they will dispense the medicine with instructions to “take as instructed by veterinarian”. In the best case, this wastes my time–clients call me to ask how often the medicine should be given, when I have already provided that information to the pharmacy. In the worst case, it puts my patients at risk of overdose (for instance, if the client for some reason believes the medicine should be given four times daily).
Another pharmacy routinely sends faxes to my office requesting authorization for prescriptions. I promptly fax back authorizations. The next day, I often receive faxes from the pharmacy, written in a somewhat threatening tone, stating that they have not received my authorization. This confusion on the part of the pharmacy is very annoying, and it also causes me to lose confidence in their business in general. If they can’t manage their fax system, how can I expect them to dispense drugs accurately?
To give the internet pharmacies credit, I have been experiencing these sorts of problems less often over the last year. Nonetheless, I still find working with some online pharmacies to be quite inconvenient.
See related Vet Blog entries:
06/13/08
 The Iditarod dog sled race is an Alaskan and American institution, in which teams of dogs and people race over 1000 miles in the course of several days. It is considered a supreme challenge in endurance racing.
Most dogs I know love to work. Cattle dogs enjoy rounding up cattle. Shepherds enjoy herding sheep. My pal Buster enjoys playing fetch (which is the closest thing to work he experiences). I have always assumed that sled dogs involved in the Iditarod enjoy running the race. And perhaps most of them do.
However, two recent papers in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association have made made it clear that some dogs are not benefiting from their participation in the race. The first paper discusses autopsy results of 23 dogs that died while running the race between 1994-2006.
Conclusions and Clinical Relevance–Unexpected death is a rare event among conditioned sled dogs during competition in endurance races. Potentially life-threatening conditions of dogs that are associated with periods of long-distance physical exertion include aspiration pneumonia, gastric mucosal lesions, and severe rhabdomyolysis. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2008;232:564-573)
Translated into English, the last sentence implies that prolonged heavy breathing may cause dogs to inhale foreign matter and develop pneumonia; stress from endurance running leads to stomach ulcers; and extreme prolonged exercise may cause muscles to break down.
I should emphasize that the vast majority of dogs that compete in the Iditarod do not suffer such serious consequences. (Although if 23 humans were to die in a dozen years during a similar sized sporting event, the event would certainly be banned.) However, the second paper points out that the stress of intense training may lead to stomach ulcers and reduced red blood cell counts in a much larger number of dogs.
[A]cute blood loss secondary to gastrointestinal tract bleeding was likely responsible for the decrease in [red blood cell count] associated with acute exercise. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2008;232:873-878)
Some people believe that running dogs in the Iditarod constitutes cruelty. I am not ready to go that far. But these articles have certainly given me something to think about.
See related Vet Blog entries:
06/10/08
The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) is the leading veterinary organization in the United States. I have had my differences with the AVMA, particularly in the debate over horse slaughter. However, I owe it to the AVMA to acknowledge that they, in the long run, have done an incredible amount of work to advance the causes of animal health and welfare.
The AVMA publishes guidelines for veterinarians on a number of issues relating to animal welfare. Readers may be interested in a brochure that was recently released and targeted to veterinary students. It is a lengthy PDF document, but it gives insight into the guidance that the organization is offering to budding veterinarians.
Here is a link to the brochure (PDF format).
As you read it, remember that the leadership of the AVMA walks a tightrope when they publish such material. The AVMA does not merely represent dog and cat vets–its ranks include large numbers of dairy, swine, beef cattle, horse, and other livestock practitioners. Its membership is diverse and sometimes fractious. However, in my opinion the brochure does a good job of skirting controversy.
See related Vet Blog entries:
06/06/08
Hi there,
Can you tell me the top reasons dogs and
cats have to visit the vet please?
Thanks.
Alison
Brighton, UK
As a veterinary family practitioner, I most commonly see patients for routine health checkups. That is a good thing, but I am guessing that you are interested in the most common health problems that trigger veterinary visits.
Although I don´t have personal quantitative data, I would say that for cats the most common medical problems I see are gastrointestinal upset/diarrhea, dental disease, urinary infections, respiratory infections, skin infections and allergies, kidney disease, thyroid disease and injuries from fighting with other cats.
For dogs (again, this is not quantitative), gastrointestinal upset and diarrhea are the leaders by a mile (that´s 1.6 kilometers if you live in the UK). These are followed by dental disease, urinary tract infections, ear infections, limping (usually caused by sprains and strains), skin infections and allergies, and minor trauma to the skin.
For those of you who prefer quantitative data, a major pet insurance company in the United States has published a list of the most common types of claims it receives for dogs and cats. A complete description of the findings can be found here. (Credit goes to Veterinary Pet Insurance, Inc.)
To summarize their findings, the top ten causes of claims for each species are listed below in order from one to ten.
Dogs: Ear infections, skin allergies, hot spots, stomach upset, intestinal inflammation/diarrhea, bladder disease, eye infections, arthritis, thyroid disease and sprains.
Cats: Urinary tract infections/disease, stomach upset, kidney disease, intestinal inflammation/diarrhea, skin allergies, diabetes, constipation, ear infections, respiratory infections and thyroid disease.
Here are my tips for preventing these problems. Feed a high quality diet. Practice home dental care (brush your pet´s teeth). Keep your pet free of parasites such as fleas and worms. Maintain your pet at a healthy weight. Do not allow your cat to go outside. And finally, take your pet to the vet for regular checkups to detect developing problems when they are at an early, treatable stage.
See related Vet Blog entries:
06/01/08
You may be aware that the Supreme Court of the United States recently considered whether execution by lethal injection violates the constitution’s clause prohibiting cruel and unusual punishments (the court ruled that lethal injections are not unconstitutional). Veterinarians are notoriously apolitical and adverse to conflict, so it surprised me to find out that veterinary euthanasia guidelines had been cited in the arguments against lethal injection in humans.
A news story in the December 15, 2007 Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA) brought the matter to the attention of veterinarians nationwide. The story sparked a frenzy of introspection among veterinarians, as well as a few letters to the editor of JAVMA. From the original article:
The high court agreed to hear the appeal of two Kentucky inmates suing the state over its three-drug lethal injection procedure, saying it causes unnecessary pain and suffering. Unwillingly caught up in the debate is the [American Veterinary Medical Association], whose Guidelines on Euthanasia are cited by lethal injection opponents arguing that even veterinarians won’t submit their animal patients to the same deadly cocktail used on condemned criminals.
The AVMA’s euthanasia guidelines were developed to help ensure that animals’ lives are ended in the kindest and most humane manner possible. And it is true that the drug cocktail used to execute criminals would, if used on a pet, violate the guidelines.
But I must confess that, like many veterinarians, I could live without the controversy. If I had wanted to get drawn into this debate, I would have become a lawyer.
See related Vet Blog entries:
05/21/08
Most people are familiar with the massive pet food recall that occurred in 2007. The recall affected dozens of brands, and was linked to ingredients that were intentionally tainted with melamine (and unintentionally tainted with cyanuric acid due to shoddy melamine manufacturing) by human beings. The combination of ingredients sickened or killed a large number of pets.
Human-made chemicals aren’t the only contaminants that can be found in pet foods. In 2005-2006, a massive recall of Diamond brand dog food occurred due to contamination with a natural poison. That poison was aflatoxin.
Aflatoxin is created by fungus that grows on corn. Exposure to aflatoxin can lead to sudden liver failure.
A report in the May 1, 2008 issue of the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association discussed the symptoms, treatment, and outcome of dogs that ate contaminated food.
Different species have varying susceptiblity to aflatoxins, with dogs being highly susceptible . . . During late 2005, a serious foodborne aflatoxin contamination that was derived from moldy corn in manufactured dog food was recognized through collaborative efforts of regional New York State veterinarians and the College of Veterinary Medicine at Cornell University . . . Although product recall was rapidly announced, high rates of morbidity and mortality of dogs nevertheless was encountered in the United States.
The report goes into quite a bit of detail about the pathology that occurred in affected dogs. But the conclusion of the study was disheartening.
Despite aggressive treatment, many but not all severely affected dogs died.
For reference, the article cited in this entry is J Am Vet Med Assoc 2008;232:1329-1337.
See related Vet Blog entries:
04/25/08
I believe B. F. Skinner was the first person to point out animals (including humans) respond more favorably to positive reinforcement than they do to punishment. In other words, if you want to train your dog, cat or spouse it is more effective to reward good behavior than to punish bad behavior.
A news item in the February 15, 2008 issue of the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association reinforces that notion. Here is an excerpt.
The American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior has issued a position statement and guidelines on the use of punishment for dealing with behavior problems in animals.
The guidelines clarify that while punishment can be effective in specific contexts, it also has an association with many adverse effects.
The news item goes on to point out that punishment, as it is employed by most people, is ineffective. In fact, it can lead to increases in undesirable behaviors such as aggression. It can weaken the bond between the punisher and the punished, and it may cause animals to become generally fearful.
Many people punish their pets out of anger, do not use punishments consistently, or time punishments inappropriately. Unless you have training in animal behavior, it is unlikely that punishing your pet will bring about desirable behavior changes.
So there you have it. The next time you come home and find garbage strewn all over the house, resist the urge to yell at the dog. It might help you blow off steam, but it won’t keep your pet out of the trash in the future.
See related Vet Blog entries:
|
|
|
Heart disease is very common in dogs. Most cases of heart disease in dogs are hereditary, rather than acquired. This means that, unlike in humans, obesity and a sedentary lifestyle are not major causes of heart disease in dogs (although obesity exacerbates heart disease in all species).
You have questions. 