Erica C Bender, Samantha J Sander, Krista A Keller, Amy N Schnelle, William E Sander
{"title":"THE EFFECTS OF ANTICOAGULANT AND TIME ON HEMATOLOGIC VALUES IN RED-TAILED HAWKS (<i>BUTEO JAMAICENSIS</i>).","authors":"Erica C Bender, Samantha J Sander, Krista A Keller, Amy N Schnelle, William E Sander","doi":"10.1638/2023-0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Free-ranging red-tailed hawks (<i>Buteo jamaicensis</i>) commonly present to wildlife facilities and veterinary clinics for injury or illness, and bloodwork is often an essential tool in their diagnostic workup. However, the type of anticoagulant used and the sample storage time prior to processing may potentially impact hematological values. This study evaluated differences between EDTA and lithium heparin (HEP) preserved blood samples in packed cell volume (PCV), total solids (TS), estimated WBC counts by smear, and WBC differential counts. Additionally, differences in estimated WBC counts and WBC differential counts between anticoagulant-free (AF) and anticoagulant preserved blood smears were evaluated. Values were compared at time of blood collection and again after refrigeration for two, six, and 24 hours. Packed cell volume and TS were not significantly different between type of anticoagulant or time stored. Statistically significant differences in estimated WBC counts between AF samples and ETDA samples were found at all time points after time of collection (p = 0.025, 0.021, 0.010 for t = 2, 6, 24, respectively), while no differences were noted between AF samples and HEP samples. White blood cell differential count was impacted with variable significance by both time and anticoagulant. Clinically, HEP should be considered the anticoagulant of choice in this species and consideration should be taken to evaluate samples as close to collection time as possible.</p>","PeriodicalId":17667,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine","volume":"56 1","pages":"62-69"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1638/2023-0002","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Free-ranging red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) commonly present to wildlife facilities and veterinary clinics for injury or illness, and bloodwork is often an essential tool in their diagnostic workup. However, the type of anticoagulant used and the sample storage time prior to processing may potentially impact hematological values. This study evaluated differences between EDTA and lithium heparin (HEP) preserved blood samples in packed cell volume (PCV), total solids (TS), estimated WBC counts by smear, and WBC differential counts. Additionally, differences in estimated WBC counts and WBC differential counts between anticoagulant-free (AF) and anticoagulant preserved blood smears were evaluated. Values were compared at time of blood collection and again after refrigeration for two, six, and 24 hours. Packed cell volume and TS were not significantly different between type of anticoagulant or time stored. Statistically significant differences in estimated WBC counts between AF samples and ETDA samples were found at all time points after time of collection (p = 0.025, 0.021, 0.010 for t = 2, 6, 24, respectively), while no differences were noted between AF samples and HEP samples. White blood cell differential count was impacted with variable significance by both time and anticoagulant. Clinically, HEP should be considered the anticoagulant of choice in this species and consideration should be taken to evaluate samples as close to collection time as possible.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine (JZWM) is considered one of the major sources of information on the biology and veterinary aspects in the field. It stems from the founding premise of AAZV to share zoo animal medicine experiences. The Journal evolved from the long history of members producing case reports and the increased publication of free-ranging wildlife papers.
The Journal accepts manuscripts of original research findings, case reports in the field of veterinary medicine dealing with captive and free-ranging wild animals, brief communications regarding clinical or research observations that may warrant publication. It also publishes and encourages submission of relevant editorials, reviews, special reports, clinical challenges, abstracts of selected articles and book reviews. The Journal is published quarterly, is peer reviewed, is indexed by the major abstracting services, and is international in scope and distribution.
Areas of interest include clinical medicine, surgery, anatomy, radiology, physiology, reproduction, nutrition, parasitology, microbiology, immunology, pathology (including infectious diseases and clinical pathology), toxicology, pharmacology, and epidemiology.