| dc.description.abstract | Reasons for performing study:
Find out if the scoring system made by Durham et al.1 is useful for the situation in the department of equine species (DES) of the faculty of veterinary medicine at the University Utrecht. The diagnostic value of specific hepatic blood values is not compared with the scoring table as well.
Hypothesis:
The method of Durham et al.1 is easy to use and gives comparable results with the situation at the DES. Blood results are not of great prognostic value.
Methods:
Liver biopsies of 33 horses were examined at the same way as done by Durham et al.1 results are noted and compared with the results of Durham et al. Al histology is noted; fibrosis, irreversible and reversible cytopathology, inflammatory infiltration, haemosiderin and cupper accumulation, biliary hyperplasia and cholestasis. In the scoring system minimum was 0 points and maximum was 14 points. A new scoring system was made for the situation in the DES. Were other point categories were changed to the situation of DES and cholestasis and reversible cytopathology were included. Now minimum was 0 points and maximum was 17 points. Morphological diagnosis were also compared with the average score. Average blood values of GGT, AST, LDH and ALP are compared with the scoring system of Durham et al.1 and with the survival rate to see the predictive value of blood work done in horses suspected of hepatic disease.
Results:
30 horses were included in this study, 17 (55.67%) did survive. Results were not comparable with Durham et al.1 big differences were found in inflammatory infiltration, haemosiderin accumulation and biliary hyperplasia. Those categories are changed in a new developed scoring table. Durham et al. did not find cholestasis and reversible cytopathology was not included in their table as well. In this study a high mortality rate of those categories was found so those were included in the new developed scoring table for the situation at the DES. Morphological diagnosis was compared with the average score for survivors and non survivors but no significant difference was seen. A difference is seen between GGT and ALP for different scoring groups but significance difference was found. Also no significant difference was seen between the average blood values of GGT, ALP, AST and LDH between survivors and non survivors.
Conclusions:
The scoring system of Durham et al. was easy to apply. Results were not comparable with those of Durham et al so a new scoring system for the situation in DES is made. A bigger population is necessary to see if there is any significant difference and to improve the scoring table. To find any possible significant difference in blood values the research should be standardized. | |
