A feasibility study investigating the utility of a point-of-care rapid immunoassay for detecting septic peritoneal effusion in dogs.

Objective: To determine the sensitivity (SN), specificity (SP), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of a point-of-care urine bacterial rapid immunoassay (RIA) for a diagnosis of septic peritonitis, compared to more traditional diagnostic tools, such as cytology and bacterial culture.

Design: Prospective, cross-sectional feasibility study conducted from October 2016 to June 2017.

Setting: Four locations within a private practice referral hospital.

Animals: Sixty-four dogs with peritoneal effusion of any etiology were enrolled. Four dogs were excluded due to absent RIA or bacterial culture results. Two additional dogs were excluded because of an inability to definitively classify them as having septic peritonitis.

Interventions: Abdominocentesis was performed to obtain peritoneal effusion samples for aerobic and anaerobic bacterial culture, cytology, and RIA. Cytological slides were evaluated by a clinical pathologist following enrollment.

Measurements And Main Results: Fifty-eight dogs were included in the study, 8 of which were classified as having septic peritonitis. Compared to final diagnosis of septic peritonitis, RIA had a low PPV (36.8%) but good NPV (97.4%) and was 77.5% accurate. SN of RIA (87.5%) to diagnose septic peritonitis was similar to cytology (85.7%) and bacterial culture (87.5%); however, SP was lower (76%, 100%, and 98%, respectively). Cytology had the best overall predictive values and accuracy for diagnosing septic peritonitis (PPV 100%, NPV 97.9%, and accuracy 98%) compared to RIA and bacterial culture.

Conclusions: RIA testing was similarly sensitive in identifying septic peritonitis compared to cytology and bacterial culture but was not very specific or accurate. As a stand-alone test, RIA commonly had false-positive test results, making it unreliable in identifying septic peritonitis. Cytology was the most accurate diagnostic test and had no false-positive results. Further investigation with a larger sample size and prevalence of septic peritonitis may prove beneficial.