Comparison of bacteria isolated from specimens obtained by use of endoscopic guarded tracheal swabbing and percutaneous tracheal aspiration in horses.

This research compared bacteria obtained from horses with pneumonia and healthy horses, using two different methods: endoscopic guarded tracheal swabbing and percutaneous tracheal aspiration. The results showed that the swabbing method, though sometimes contaminated, has potential and could be an alternative to aspiration, but any Pseudomonas sp and anaerobic bacteria may be contaminants and not necessarily involved in the main lung disease.

Methodology and Sample Population

• The research involved two groups of horses – a group of 14 horses diagnosed with pneumonia (pneumonia group) and a group of 15 horses that were clinically healthy (non-pneumonia group).
• From both groups, samples were collected using two different methods: endoscopic guarded tracheal swabbing and percutaneous tracheal aspiration. The objective was to compare the bacteriologic culture results from both methods.

Findings in Pneumonia Group

• In the pneumonia group, the agreement between the two tracheal specimen collection methods was 79% for aerobic isolates and 100% for anaerobic isolates. This suggests that there is a high level of consistency between the findings extracted using both methods.

Findings in Non-Pneumonia Group

• In the non-pneumonia group, the agreement between results from the two tracheal specimen collection methods was 80% for aerobic organisms and 93% for anaerobic organisms. This again indicates significant correlation between the findings of the two sampling techniques.

Endoscopic Guarded Swabbing Method

• The study found that the endoscopic guarded swabbing method sometimes did not prevent contamination. However, it also proposed that this method of sample collection has potential and possibly could be considered as an alternative to percutaneous tracheal aspiration.
• A key caution the study offers is that any Pseudomonas sp and anaerobic bacteria found during the endoscopic swabbing might possibly be contaminants of the sample and not necessarily indicators of primary pulmonary disease.