• 1. Brobst D. Urinalysis and associated laboratory procedures. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1989;19:929949.

  • 2. Wiwanitkit V. Effect of storage time on dog urine. J Small Anim Pract 2010;51:53

  • 3. Steinberg E, Drobatz K, Aronson L. The effect of substrate composition and storage time on urine specific gravity in dogs. J Small Anim Pract 2009;50:536539

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4. Fairburn AJ, Canfield PJ, Paris R. Simple urinalysis for the practitioner. Aust Vet Pract 1983;13:4653

  • 5. Osborne CA, Low DC, Finco DR. Canine and feline urology. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1972;3961.

  • 6. Osborne CA. Handbook of canine and feline urinalysis. St Louis: Ralston Purina Co, 1981;1318.

  • 7. VetScan UA10 urine test strips [package insert]. Union City, Calif: Abaxis, 2017.

  • 8. Gunn-Christie RG, Flatland B, Friedrichs KR, et al. ASVCP quality assurance guidelines: control of preanalytical, analytical, and postanalytical factors for urinalysis, cytology, and clinical chemistry in veterinary laboratories. Vet Clin Pathol 2012;41:1826.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9. Albasan H, Lulich JP, Osborne CA, et al. Effects of storage time and temperature on pH, specific gravity, and crystal formation in urine samples from dogs and cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2003;222:176179.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. GP16-A3. Urinalysis; approved guideline—third edition. Wayne, Pa: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, 2009;410.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11. Kierkegaard H, Feldt-Rasmussen U, H⊘rder M, et al. Falsely negative urinary leucocyte counts due to delayed examination. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 1980;40:259261.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12. Ercan M, Akbulut ED, Abuşoglu S, et al. Stability of urine specimens stored with and without preservatives at room temperature and on ice prior to urinalysis. Clin Biochem 2015;48:919922.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13. Ekşioglu MK, Madenci ÖÇ, Yücel N, et al. The effectiveness of BD Vacutainer Plus Urinalysis Preservative Tubes in preservation of urine for chemical strip analysis and particle counting. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2016;26:224232.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14. Avci E, Aybek H, Kangal Z, et al. The role of tubes with preservative in urinalysis of pregnant women. Med Sci (Turkey) 2018;7:610612.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15. BD Vacutainer urinalysis preservative tube [package insert]. Franklin Lakes, NJ: Becton, Dickinson and Co, 2011.

  • 16. Swenson CL, Boisvert AM, Kruger JM, et al. Evaluation of modified Wright-staining of urine sediment as a method for accurate detection of bacteriuria in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2004;224:12821289.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17. O'Neil E, Horney B, Burton S, et al. Comparison of wet-mount, Wright-Giemsa and Gram-stained urine sediment for predicting bacteriuria in dogs and cats. Can Vet J 2013;54:10611066.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18. Siemens. CLINITEK Status+ quick reference guide. Rev B. Camberly, England: Siemens AG, 2009

  • 19. Reine NJ, Langston CE. Urinalysis interpretation: how to squeeze out the maximum information from a small sample. Clin Tech Small Anim Pract 2005;20:210.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20. Mukaka MM. Statistics corner: a guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J 2012;24:6971.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21. Allen TA, Jones RL, Purvance J. Microbiologic evaluation of canine urine: direct microscopic examination and preservation of specimen quality for culture. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1987;190:12891291.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22. Perrin J, Nicolet J. Influence of the transport on the outcome of the bacteriological analysis of dog urine comparison of three transport tubes. Zentralbl Veterinarmed B 1992;39:662667.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23. Rowlands M, Blackwood L, Mas A, et al. The effect of boric acid on bacterial culture of canine and feline urine. J Small Anim Pract 2011;52:510514.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24. Kouri T, Malminiemi O, Penders J, et al. Limits of preservation of samples for urine strip tests and particle counting. Clin Chem Lab Med 2008;46:703713.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25. Heuter KJ, Buffington CA, Chew DJ. Agreement between two methods for measuring urine pH in cats and dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1998;213:996998.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26. Athanasiou LV, Katsoulos PD, Katsogiannou EG, et al. Comparison between the urine dipstick and the pH-meter to assess urine pH in sheep and dogs. Vet Clin Pathol 2018;47:284288.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27. Kwong T, Robinson C, Spencer D, et al. Accuracy of urine pH testing in a regional metabolic renal clinic: is the dipstick accurate enough? Urolithiasis 2013;41:129132.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28. Moyle PS, Specht A, Hill R. Effect of common storage temperatures and container types on urine protein : creatinine ratios in urine samples of proteinuric dogs. J Vet Intern Med 2018;32:16521658.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29. Langlois MR, Delanghe JR, Steyaert SR, et al. Automated flow cytometry compared with an automated dipstick reader for urinalysis. Clin Chem 1999;45:118122.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30. Padilla J, Osborne CA, Ward GE. Effects of storage time and temperature on quantitative culture of canine urine. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1981;178:10771081.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31. Wan SY, Hartmann FA, Jooss MK, et al. Prevalence and clinical outcome of subclinical bacteriuria in female dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2014;245:106112.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32. Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine eClinpath. The sample collection page. Available at: www.eclinpath.com/urinalysis/sample-collection/. Accessed Feb 5, 2020.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Investigation of the effects of storage with preservatives at room temperature or refrigeration without preservatives on urinalysis results for samples from healthy dogs

Harmeet K. Aulakh BVSc & AH, MVSc1, Karanvir S. Aulakh BVSc & AH, MS1, Kirk A. Ryan DVM1, Chin-Chi Liu MS, MApStat, PhD1, and Mark J. Acierno MBA, DVM1
View More View Less
  • 1 1Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803.
  • | 2 2Department of Specialty Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Midwestern University, Glendale, AZ 85308.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare urinalysis results for canine urine samples stored in preservative-containing tubes at room temperature (20°C to 25°C [68°F to 77°F]) or refrigerated at 4°C (39.2°F) in plain glass tubes with results for the same samples immediately after collection.

SAMPLES

Urine samples from 20 healthy dogs.

PROCEDURES

Urine samples (1/dog) were divided into 6 aliquots (3 in preservative-containing tubes and 3 in plain glass tubes). Preservative-containing tubes were stored at room temperature and plain glass tubes were refrigerated. Urinalysis was performed 0, 24, and 72 hours after collection. Results for both storage conditions were compared with results for a reference sample (the 0-hour [immediate post-collection] aliquot in a plain glass tube) by Spearman correlation analysis with pairwise tests for selected variables.

RESULTS

Physical variables (urine color and turbidity with and without centrifugation) for both storage conditions had high (rs = 0.7 to 0.9) or very high (rs = 0.9 to 1.0) degrees of positive correlation with reference sample results at all time points, except for color at 24 hours. Similar results were found for all biochemical variables with storage up to 72 hours. For microscopic characteristics, correlation with reference sample results ranged from low or nonsignificant to very high under both storage conditions.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Results suggested that if a delay in urinalysis is expected, use of the preservative-containing tubes evaluated in this study may be a viable option for sample storage. Further research is warranted to assess direct comparability of results to those of freshly collected samples and use of these tubes to store samples from dogs with conditions affecting the urinary tract.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare urinalysis results for canine urine samples stored in preservative-containing tubes at room temperature (20°C to 25°C [68°F to 77°F]) or refrigerated at 4°C (39.2°F) in plain glass tubes with results for the same samples immediately after collection.

SAMPLES

Urine samples from 20 healthy dogs.

PROCEDURES

Urine samples (1/dog) were divided into 6 aliquots (3 in preservative-containing tubes and 3 in plain glass tubes). Preservative-containing tubes were stored at room temperature and plain glass tubes were refrigerated. Urinalysis was performed 0, 24, and 72 hours after collection. Results for both storage conditions were compared with results for a reference sample (the 0-hour [immediate post-collection] aliquot in a plain glass tube) by Spearman correlation analysis with pairwise tests for selected variables.

RESULTS

Physical variables (urine color and turbidity with and without centrifugation) for both storage conditions had high (rs = 0.7 to 0.9) or very high (rs = 0.9 to 1.0) degrees of positive correlation with reference sample results at all time points, except for color at 24 hours. Similar results were found for all biochemical variables with storage up to 72 hours. For microscopic characteristics, correlation with reference sample results ranged from low or nonsignificant to very high under both storage conditions.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Results suggested that if a delay in urinalysis is expected, use of the preservative-containing tubes evaluated in this study may be a viable option for sample storage. Further research is warranted to assess direct comparability of results to those of freshly collected samples and use of these tubes to store samples from dogs with conditions affecting the urinary tract.

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to Dr. Karanvir Aulakh (kaulakh@lsu.edu).