Preoperative factors associated with resection and anastomosis in horses presenting with strangulating lesions of the small intestine

Clinical predictive models in equine medicine: A systematic review

Clinical predictive models use a patient's baseline demographic and clinical data to make predictions about patient outcomes and have the potential to aid clinical decision making. The extent of equine clinical predictive models is unknown in the literature. Using PubMed and Google Scholar, we systematically reviewed the predictive models currently described for use in equine patients. Models were eligible for inclusion if they were published in a peer-reviewed article as a multivariable model used to predict a clinical/laboratory/imaging outcome in an individual horse or herd. The agreement of at least two authors was required for model inclusion. We summarised the patient populations, model development methods, performance metric reporting, validation efforts, and, using the Predictive model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST), assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns for these models. In addition, we summarised the index conditions for which models were developed and provided detailed information on included models. A total of 90 predictive models and 9 external validation studies were included in the final systematic review. A plurality of models (41%) was developed to predict outcomes associated with colic, for example, need for surgery or survival to discharge. All included models were at high risk of bias, defined as failing one or more PROBAST signalling questions, primarily for analysis-related reasons. Importantly, a high risk of bias does not necessarily mean that models are unusable, but that they require more careful consideration prior to clinical use. Concerns about applicability were low for the majority of models. Systematic reviews such as this can serve to increase veterinarians' awareness of predictive models, including evaluation of their performance and their use in different patient populations.

Peritoneal bile acids concentration in adult horses with hepatic and gastrointestinal disorders

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal bile acids concentration (PBAC) has not been previously reported in horses. A case of liver lobe torsion in which increased PBAC was detected prompted us to study PBAC in horses.

OBJECTIVES

(a) To determine a reference range of PBAC in horses; (b) to compare PBAC from horses with either hepatic or gastrointestinal disease and healthy horses and (c) to assess the prognostic and diagnostic values of PBAC.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective case-control.

METHODS

Prospective observational clinical study. Bile acids concentrations were measured in both plasma and peritoneal fluid in selected clinical patients with hepatic or gastrointestinal disease (n = 108) and healthy horses (n = 11). Sixty-eight of 108 patients survived to hospital discharge, and the remaining 40 were nonsurvivors. Additionally, other haematological and biochemistry analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Sick horses were classified according to diagnosis into hepatic (n = 13), gastrointestinal (GI) obstructive (n = 48) and GI ischaemic-inflammatory (n = 47) groups. The hepatic group had significantly higher PBAC (6.8 [2.3-9.4]; median [IQR]) than the control (1.0 [0.6-1.5]) and GI obstructive groups (1.2 [0.8-1.7] µmol/L; P < .001). Moreover, the GI ischaemic-inflammatory group (3.3 [1.4-5.5]) also had significantly higher values than the control and GI obstructive groups (P < .001). Regarding outcome, the nonsurvivor group (n = 40) had significantly higher median PBAC value than the survivor group (n = 68, 4.1 [1.6-6.5] vs 1.3 [0.8-3]; P < .001).

MAIN LIMITATIONS

A higher number of horses with abdominal disease is required to confirm the clinical significance of these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

PBAC may have a role in the diagnosis of hepatic and gastrointestinal disease and as a prognostic tool in horses with abdominal pain.

Use of perioperative variables to determine the requirement for repeat celiotomy in horses with postoperative reflux after small intestinal surgery

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether perioperative variables can be used to differentiate a medical vs a surgical reason for postoperative reflux (POR) after small intestinal (SI) surgery in horses.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SAMPLE POPULATION

Horses >1 year of age that recovered from SI surgery and had POR.

METHODS

Medical records of horses that underwent SI surgery and developed POR from 2009-2015 were reviewed. Surgical reasons for POR were defined as an anastomosis complication, mechanical obstruction, or nonviable intestine identified at repeat celiotomy/necropsy. A medical reason for POR was presumed when the POR improved with medical treatment or when no surgical reasons were identified at repeat celiotomy/necropsy. Perioperative variables were analyzed and used to develop a logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Fifty-one horses had POR after SI surgery. After initial SI surgery, 14 horses had surgical reasons for POR diagnosed at repeat celiotomy or necropsy. Thirty-seven horses were considered to have medical reasons for POR because their POR resolved with medical management or functional ileus was diagnosed at repeat celiotomy/necropsy. A greater volume and a greater duration of POR were not associated with a surgical reason for POR. Rather, a postoperative (PO) fever and the timing of colic in the PO period were associated with a surgical reason for POR.

CONCLUSION

Horses that developed a fever and colic in the PO period after SI surgery were more likely to have a surgical reason for POR.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

These findings may provide guidance for clinicians when they are making decisions about repeat celiotomy in horses with POR after SI surgery.