Protein C and comparative biochemical changes in dogs treated with percutaneous transvenous coil embolization of congenital intrahepatic portosystemic shunts.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate protein C (PC) activity after intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (IHPSS) percutaneous transvenous coil embolization (PTCE) in dogs; to identify if PC is associated with clinical status after intervention, and to compare PC with standard biochemical values. STUDY DESIGN Retrospective case series. ANIMALS Forty-seven client-owned dogs with IHPSS undergoing PTCE. METHODS Records were reviewed for preoperative and postoperative PC, hematocrit (HCT), mean corpuscular volume (MCV), albumin (ALB), and blood urea nitrogen (BUN). Ultimate clinical status was classified as excellent, fair, or poor, based on ongoing medical management and the presence of clinical signs. Intrahepatic portosystemic shunt was considered to be completely or incompletely occluded intraoperatively based on angiography. RESULTS Postoperative PC activity increased in 37/47 (78.7%) dogs with a mean increase of 38.7% ± 2.1%. Ultimate postoperative clinical status was excellent in 16/43 (37.2%), fair in 19/43 (44.2%), and poor in 8/43 dogs (18.6%). No association was detected between preoperative PC (46.8% ± 1.8%) and ultimate clinical status but mean postoperative PC (75.7% ± 1.4%), HCT, MCV, ALB, and BUN were higher in dogs with excellent clinical status. Postoperative PC activity was higher when shunts were completely occluded (96.3% ± 10.9%), which was a finding associated with excellent status. CONCLUSION Postoperative, but not preoperative, PC activity was higher in dogs with better ultimate clinical status. Similar trends were noted in standard hematological and biochemical values. Complete occlusion of shunts was associated with a higher postoperative PC and superior ultimate clinical status. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE Postoperative PC may provide valuable information about the success of PTCE for IHPSS as it relates to the ultimate status and the need for additional procedures.

[1]  G. Chanoit,et al.  Outcomes of dogs treated for extrahepatic congenital portosystemic shunts with thin film banding or ameroid ring constrictor. , 2019, Veterinary surgery : VS.

[2]  M. Tivers,et al.  Health‐related quality of life following surgical attenuation of congenital portosystemic shunts versus healthy controls , 2018, The Journal of small animal practice.

[3]  J. B. Case,et al.  Outcomes of cellophane banding or percutaneous transvenous coil embolization of canine intrahepatic portosystemic shunts , 2018, Veterinary surgery : VS.

[4]  L. Penning,et al.  Genome‐wide based model predicting recovery from portosystemic shunting after liver shunt attenuation in dogs , 2018, Journal of veterinary internal medicine.

[5]  D. Brockman,et al.  Intrahepatic congenital portosystemic shunts in dogs: short‐ and long‐term outcome of suture attenuation , 2018, The Journal of small animal practice.

[6]  B. Lussier,et al.  Comparative outcomes between ameroid ring constrictor and cellophane banding for treatment of single congenital extrahepatic portosystemic shunts in 49 dogs (1998‐2012) , 2018, Veterinary surgery : VS.

[7]  P. Mayhew,et al.  Prospective evaluation of outcome of dogs with intrahepatic portosystemic shunts treated via percutaneous transvenous coil embolization , 2018, Veterinary surgery : VS.

[8]  D. Brockman,et al.  Treatment of intrahepatic congenital portosystemic shunts in dogs: a systematic review , 2017, The Journal of small animal practice.

[9]  K. Mankin.  Current concepts in congenital portosystemic shunts. , 2015, The Veterinary clinics of North America. Small animal practice.

[10]  J. Solomon,et al.  Endovascular evaluation and treatment of intrahepatic portosystemic shunts in dogs: 100 cases (2001-2011). , 2014, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

[11]  J. Rothuizen,et al.  Hepatic volume measurements in dogs with extrahepatic congenital portosystemic shunts before and after surgical attenuation. , 2010, Journal of veterinary internal medicine.

[12]  K. Tobias,et al.  Portosystemic vascular anomalies. , 2009, The Veterinary clinics of North America. Small animal practice.

[13]  D. Laflamme.  Pet food safety: dietary protein. , 2008, Topics in companion animal medicine.

[14]  Linda L. Archer,et al.  Outcome associated with use of a percutaneously controlled hydraulic occluder for treatment of dogs with intrahepatic portosystemic shunts. , 2006, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

[15]  H. Erb,et al.  Evaluation of plasma protein C activity for detection of hepatobiliary disease and portosystemic shunting in dogs. , 2006, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

[16]  D. Brockman,et al.  Association of portovenographic findings with outcome in dogs receiving surgical treatment for single congenital portosystemic shunts: 45 cases (2000-2004). , 2006, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

[17]  E. Hardie,et al.  Evaluation of ameroid ring constrictors for treatment for single extrahepatic portosystemic shunts in dogs: 168 cases (1995-2001). , 2005, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

[18]  J. T. Winkler,et al.  Portosystemic shunts: diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of 64 cases (1993-2001). , 2003, Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association.

[19]  L. Papazoglou,et al.  Survival and prognostic indicators for dogs with intrahepatic portosystemic shunts: 32 cases (1990-2000). , 2002, Veterinary surgery : VS.

[20]  S. A. Goedegebuure,et al.  Growth and skeletal development in Great Dane pups fed different levels of protein intake. , 1991, The Journal of nutrition.