I thought I had an excellent Vet..and he's a really great person and very easy to talk to.....but I'm growing more concerned with some of his viewpoints....to the point where I wonder if I need to find a new Vet?
1. My cat Cleo had a urinalysis done a couple of weeks ago (urine collected by cystocentesis, so sterile sample). Testing done in-house at clinic. Vet called me with results. She'd definitely had no symptoms of a UTI, this U/A was really just part of an annual exam and to check kidney function mostly. I was very surprised when he told me that urine showed presence of bacteria, significant amount of WBCs and some RBCs (and pH of 7). He suggested to me that because she's feisty and hard to pill, that he could give her a shot of Convenia. I was surprised. Convenia, from what I've read, is used for soft tissue infections.....and is not sensitive to the common types of bacteria (eg; E Coli) that cause UTIs in cats. While it may be 'convenient', what point is there in giving if it's not going to cure the infection? As it turns out, she'd had a shot of Convenia 3 weeks prior (related to her sudden occurence of a patch of red skin and fur loss and was given a shot of Convenia then so he felt that if she'd already had it recently and still had a UTI, there was no point in giving it again -- so he prescribed Baytril instead.
2. Normally when I have ever had a cat with a UTI as per results of urinalysis, I request the sample be sent off for a urine culture (if urine collected by cysto). I asked him about this. He basically talked me out of it citing that he felt that it would just be wasting my money. He explained that recently they'd had 2 different cats whose urinalysis showed a UTI but when sent off for culture, culture came back 'negative' (meaning: no bacteria present). Now instead of just jumping to the conclusion that a culture is "useless and a waste of money", wouldn't it make more sense to perhaps consider that perhaps the clinic staff aren't maybe interpreting the urine properly when running the urinalysis? (I know the urinalysis usually involves dipping the urine with a strip but they also use a machine to analyze the urine under a microscope, something along those lines). Does it make any SENSE that you have 2 urines that show the presence of bacteria when U/A done 'in house' but same urine comes back 'negative' when central vet lab does a culture? It doesn't make any sense to me. If bacteria ARE seen when in-house urinalysis is done, they're not going to just "go away"......naturally they're going to grow on the Petri dish. Bacteria just don't 'disappear' without the appropriate antibiotic treatment.
Thoughts?
1. My cat Cleo had a urinalysis done a couple of weeks ago (urine collected by cystocentesis, so sterile sample). Testing done in-house at clinic. Vet called me with results. She'd definitely had no symptoms of a UTI, this U/A was really just part of an annual exam and to check kidney function mostly. I was very surprised when he told me that urine showed presence of bacteria, significant amount of WBCs and some RBCs (and pH of 7). He suggested to me that because she's feisty and hard to pill, that he could give her a shot of Convenia. I was surprised. Convenia, from what I've read, is used for soft tissue infections.....and is not sensitive to the common types of bacteria (eg; E Coli) that cause UTIs in cats. While it may be 'convenient', what point is there in giving if it's not going to cure the infection? As it turns out, she'd had a shot of Convenia 3 weeks prior (related to her sudden occurence of a patch of red skin and fur loss and was given a shot of Convenia then so he felt that if she'd already had it recently and still had a UTI, there was no point in giving it again -- so he prescribed Baytril instead.
2. Normally when I have ever had a cat with a UTI as per results of urinalysis, I request the sample be sent off for a urine culture (if urine collected by cysto). I asked him about this. He basically talked me out of it citing that he felt that it would just be wasting my money. He explained that recently they'd had 2 different cats whose urinalysis showed a UTI but when sent off for culture, culture came back 'negative' (meaning: no bacteria present). Now instead of just jumping to the conclusion that a culture is "useless and a waste of money", wouldn't it make more sense to perhaps consider that perhaps the clinic staff aren't maybe interpreting the urine properly when running the urinalysis? (I know the urinalysis usually involves dipping the urine with a strip but they also use a machine to analyze the urine under a microscope, something along those lines). Does it make any SENSE that you have 2 urines that show the presence of bacteria when U/A done 'in house' but same urine comes back 'negative' when central vet lab does a culture? It doesn't make any sense to me. If bacteria ARE seen when in-house urinalysis is done, they're not going to just "go away"......naturally they're going to grow on the Petri dish. Bacteria just don't 'disappear' without the appropriate antibiotic treatment.
Thoughts?
