| Literature DB >> 31596900 |
Diego Piantedosi1, Alfonso Piscitelli2, Angela De Rosa1, Blanca Serrano Lopez3, Marta Claretti3, Elisabetta Boz3, Laura Mazzoni3, Iolanda Navalon Calvo4, Paolo Ciaramella1, Claudio Bussadori3.
Abstract
One hundred and twenty dogs were enrolled to value the effect of loading condition changes on left ventricular volumes before and 24-hours after the patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) occlusion by Amplatzer Canine Duct Occluder (ACDO) using standard echocardiography. The animals were divided in pure breed (n. 94) and mixed breed (n. 26); subsequently, the pure breed dogs were divided on the basis of the size of the breed of belonging in 3 groups (small size n. 36; medium size n. 8; large size n. 50). Moreover, the animals were divided in three classes based on their age: until 6 months; 6-12 months; over 12 months. A significant reduction of all the examined parameters (left ventricle internal diameter at end-diastole-LVIDd; left ventricle internal diameter at end-systole-LVIDs; end-diastolic volume-EDV; end-systolic volume-ESV; end-diastolic volume index-EDVI; end-systolic volume index-ESVI; fractional shortening-FS) was observed after ductal closure. Twenty-four hours after the closure, the evaluation of the relative percentage difference (RPD) of the echocardiographic parameters showed a significant reduction, higher in small size breed than in large size breed dogs. No significant difference related to breed size was observed only for RPD_FS variable. A significant interaction effect, between breed size and age classes, was observed only for RPD_EDVI (F = 3.39; p = 0.039). Until six months of age there was no significant difference in RPD_EDVI reduction, but over 6 months a significant reduction between small size and large size breed dogs at 24-hours from the occlusion was observed. In conclusion, our data seem to indicate that small breed dogs show a greater tolerance to congenital volume overload than large breed dogs, and this finding could be justify a delay of PDA closure in order to simplify the interventional procedure.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31596900 PMCID: PMC6785069 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223676
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Distribution of study population for breed and sex.
| Breed | Sex | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | ||
| German Shepherd | 5 | 12 | 17 |
| Dobermann | 3 | 6 | 9 |
| Newfoundland | 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Jack Russell Terrier | 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Miniature Poodle | 2 | 3 | 5 |
| English Cocker Spaniel | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| Pembroke Welsh Corgi | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Maltese | 3 | 1 | 4 |
| Border Collie | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Labrador Retriever | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Chihuahua | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| Smooth-haired Dachshund | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Cavalier King Charles Spaniel | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| White Swiss Shepherd | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| English Setter | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Irish Red Setter | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Italian Volpino | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| West Highland White Terrier | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Akita | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Australian Shepherd | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Old English Sheepdog | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Bolognese | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Bernese Mountain Dog | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Hungarian Short-haired Pointer | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Espaneul Breton | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Golden Retriever | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Blue Gascony Griffon | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Czechoslovakian wolfdog | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Malinois Belgian Shepherd | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Pekingese | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Italian Sighthound | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Staffordshire Bull Terrier | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Italian Short-haired Segugio | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Weimaraner | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Mixed breed | 2 | 24 | 26 |
| TOTAL | 31 | 89 | 120 |
Echocardiographic variables: Ranks and Wilcoxon signed rank test values.
| Variables | Types | N | Mean Rank | Sum of Ranks | Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test (based on positive ranks) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negative Ranks | (Post<Pre) | 114 | 61.97 | 7065.00 | -9.268 | 0.000 | |
| Positive Ranks | (Post>Pre) | 5 | 15.00 | 75.00 | |||
| Ties | 1 | ||||||
| Negative Ranks | (Post<Pre) | 82 | 62.99 | 5165.00 | -4.444 | 0.000 | |
| Positive Ranks | (Post>Pre) | 36 | 51.56 | 1856.00 | |||
| Ties | 2 | ||||||
| Negative Ranks | (Post<Pre) | 113 | 62.17 | 7025.00 | -9.162 | 0.000 | |
| Positive Ranks | (Post>Pre) | 6 | 19.17 | 115.00 | |||
| Ties | 1 | ||||||
| Negative Ranks | (Post<Pre) | 83 | 61.07 | 5069.00 | -4.185 | 0.000 | |
| Positive Ranks | (Post>Pre) | 35 | 55.77 | 1952.00 | |||
| Ties | 2 | ||||||
| Negative Ranks | (Post<Pre) | 115 | 62.50 | 7187.00 | -9.315 | 0.000 | |
| Positive Ranks | (Post>Pre) | 5 | 14.60 | 73.00 | |||
| Ties | 0 | ||||||
| Negative Ranks | (Post<Pre) | 84 | 62.23 | 5227.00 | -4.610 | 0.000 | |
| Positive Ranks | (Post>Pre) | 34 | 52.76 | 1794.00 | |||
| Ties | 2 | ||||||
| Negative Ranks | (Post<Pre) | 100 | 67.21 | 6721.00 | -8.095 | 0.000 | |
| Positive Ranks | (Post>Pre) | 20 | 26.95 | 539.00 | |||
| Ties | 0 | ||||||
RDP variables: Group of statistics and independent samples t test values.
| Size | N | Mean | Std. Dev. | T test | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Small | 36 | -0.1650 | 0.10681 | -2.520 | 0.014 | |
| Large | 50 | -0.1134 | 0.08302 | |||
| Small | 36 | -0.0733 | 0.10525 | -3.004 | 0.004 | |
| Large | 50 | -0.0068 | 0.09847 | |||
| Small | 36 | -0.3372 | 0.19560 | -2.742 | 0.007 | |
| Large | 50 | -0.2292 | 0.16861 | |||
| Small | 36 | -0.1661 | 0.23353 | -3,193 | 0.002 | |
| Large | 50 | 0.0011 | 0.24379 | |||
| Small | 36 | -0.3404 | 0.19437 | -2,780 | 0.007 | |
| Large | 50 | -0.2326 | 0.16414 | |||
| Small | 36 | -0.1704 | 0.23361 | -3,260 | 0.002 | |
| Large | 50 | 0.0003 | 0.24386 | |||
| Small | 36 | -0.2208 | 0.21292 | 0.448 | 0.656 | |
| Large | 50 | -0.2432 | 0.23982 |
Fig 1Two-way ANOVA RPD_EDVI profile plot: Interaction between age classes and size.