@article{slead_gremillion_cohen_tolbert_2022, title={Esophageal varices in dogs: A retrospective case series}, volume={1}, ISSN={["1939-1676"]}, DOI={10.1111/jvim.16355}, abstractNote={AbstractBackgroundEsophageal varices (EV) are abnormally dilated veins in the esophagus caused by alterations of blood flow or pressure. Esophageal variceal hemorrhage is a major complication of hepatic disease in humans, but a lack of information exists regarding associated adverse events in dogs.ObjectiveTo describe the clinical manifestations and associated etiologies and outcomes of dogs with EV.AnimalsTwenty‐five client‐owned dogs with EV diagnosed via computed tomography (CT), endoscopy, or fluoroscopy.MethodsRetrospective case series. Cases were identified by review of the hospital imaging records database between 2010 and 2020. Signalment, clinical signs, and outcomes were documented. When present, additional collateral vasculature was also recorded. Cases were subcategorized into suspected etiology based upon the anatomic location or absence of an attributable underlying disease process, as well as the direction of blood flow.ResultsTwenty‐four of 25 cases were identified via CT, with a prevalence of 0.012% (24/1950 total studies). Presenting clinical signs were nonspecific, and more likely because of the underlying cause as opposed to complications secondary to EV themselves. Etiologic anatomic locations were similar in occurrence between the abdomen (N = 14) and thorax (N = 11). All cases with an abdominal etiologic location had presumed or confirmed portal hypertension and 9/11 cases with a thoracic etiologic location had pulmonary, caval, or systemic hypertension. No cases died or were euthanized as a direct result of EV or associated hemorrhage.Conclusions and Clinical ImportanceEsophageal varices are rarely reported in dogs and commonly identified concurrently with portal, pulmonary, and caval hypertension. Hemorrhage is not a common clinical manifestation of EV.}, journal={JOURNAL OF VETERINARY INTERNAL MEDICINE}, author={Slead, Tanner S. and Gremillion, Christine L. and Cohen, Eli B. and Tolbert, M. Katherine}, year={2022}, month={Jan} }
 @article{duxbury_sorah_tolbert_2022, title={Evaluation of proton pump inhibitor administration in hospitalized dogs in a tertiary referral hospital}, ISSN={["1939-1676"]}, DOI={10.1111/jvim.16491}, abstractNote={AbstractBackgroundAlthough proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are commonly administered to hospitalized dogs, prescribing patterns and appropriateness of use require continued investigation.Hypothesis/ObjectiveDescribe prescription patterns and appropriateness of use associated with PPIs in hospitalized dogs at a single tertiary care facility. We hypothesized that the majority of prescriptions would not comply with current guidelines for the rational use of acid suppressants.AnimalsTwo hundred randomly selected hospitalized dogs.MethodsRetrospective evaluation of the medical records associated with a randomly selected sample of hospitalized dogs that received PPIs between January 2013 and December 2018.ResultsA total of 12 610 dogs were admitted for first‐time hospitalization between January 2013 and December 2018. Forty percent of these dogs (5062/12610) were prescribed a PPI PO or IV. Of the 200 randomly selected records, an adequate indication for use was identified in 27% of dogs (54/200). Of the dogs surviving to discharge, 54% (95/175) were discharged with a PPI and 51.6% (49/95) of those were prescribed an inadequate dose.Conclusions and ImportanceOur findings support other studies in which the majority of PPI prescriptions for hospitalized dogs at a tertiary care hospital lacked an appropriate indication. Furthermore, analysis of the prescribing patterns of dispensed PPIs identified a frequent occurrence of dosages considered inadequate, raising concern for ineffective treatment even with appropriate indications of use. With growing concern of adverse effects associated with PPI and other acid suppressant administration in human and veterinary medicine, rational use of these medications following consensus guidelines should be emphasized and treatment should be reserved for dogs with historical, physical examination, clinicopathologic, and imaging findings supportive of an appropriate indication for use.}, journal={JOURNAL OF VETERINARY INTERNAL MEDICINE}, author={Duxbury, Samantha and Sorah, Emily and Tolbert, M. Katherine}, year={2022}, month={Jul} }
 @article{barash_lashnits_kern_tolbert_lunn_2022, title={Outcomes of esophageal and gastric bone foreign bodies in dogs}, volume={2}, ISSN={["1939-1676"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1111/jvim.16383}, DOI={10.1111/jvim.16383}, abstractNote={AbstractBackgroundBone foreign bodies are commonly encountered in small animal practice. Esophageal bone foreign bodies (E‐bFBs) warrant removal, whereas gastric bone foreign bodies might not.ObjectivesDescribe management and outcomes for dogs with esophageal or gastric bone foreign bodies.AnimalsOne hundred twenty‐nine dogs with esophageal (n = 45) or gastric (n = 84) bone foreign bodies.MethodsRetrospective review of medical records.ResultsDogs with E‐bFBs were younger than dogs with gastric bone foreign bodies (median age esophageal, 4 years [IQR 2‐8]; median age gastric, 6 years [IQR 3‐10]; P = .03), and had a higher bone cross‐sectional area relative to body weight (median esophageal, 98.21 mm2/kg [IQR 48.25‐142.6]; median gastric, 28.6 mm2/kg [IQR 17.25‐64.28]; P < .001). Forty‐two of 45 esophageal foreign bodies were resolved non‐surgically and 3 by esophagotomy. Esophageal erosions were more likely with distal entrapment (OR 12.88, [95% CI 31.95‐129.29], P = .01) and longer duration (OR 18.82 [95% CI 2.22‐273.97], P = .01). Sixty‐two of 84 bone gastric foreign bodies were left in situ. Endoscopic removal was successful in 20 of 22 (91%; 95% CI 70‐99) attempts.Conclusions and Clinical ImportanceWhile all E‐bFBs were dislodged either by advancement into the stomach, endoscopic removal, or esophagotomy, the majority of gastric bone foreign bodies were left in situ for dissolution, with no reported complications. Gastric advancement of E‐bFBs should be considered when oral removal is not feasible, and dissolution can be considered even with large bones.}, journal={JOURNAL OF VETERINARY INTERNAL MEDICINE}, author={Barash, Nanelle R. and Lashnits, Erin and Kern, Zachary T. and Tolbert, Mary Katherine and Lunn, Katharine F.}, year={2022}, month={Feb} }