Table 1.
Comparison of results for BALF samples obtained via MA and SPA from 18 client‐owned dogs with naturally occurring respiratory tract disease.
| Variable | Mean by Technique | Median by Technique | Mean Difference | SD of Difference | Median Distribution of Differencesa | IQR for Distribution of Differences | P Valueb | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MA | SPA | MA | SPA | ||||||
| Percentage (%) of retrieved infusate | 26.8 | 44.3 | — | — | 17.5 | 17.4 | — | — | .001 |
| Quality score | |||||||||
| Cellularityc | — | — | 4 | 4 | — | — | 0 | 0.5 | .10 |
| Cell preservationd | — | — | 4 | 4 | — | — | 0 | 0 | .41 |
| RBCse | — | — | 0 | 0 | — | — | 0 | 0 | .32 |
| Epithelial cellsf | — | — | 0 | 0 | — | — | 0 | 0 | .56 |
| Extracellular bacteriag | — | — | 0 | 0 | — | — | 0 | 1 | 1.0 |
| TNCC (No. of cells/μL) | — | — | 575 | 695 | — | — | 90 | 492 | .87 |
| Differential cell count | |||||||||
| Macrophage (%) | — | — | 29 | 54 | — | — | 2 | 14.5 | .40 |
| Neutrophil (%) | — | — | 10 | 7 | — | — | −2 | 7 | .43 |
| Lymphocyte (%) | — | — | 5 | 7 | — | — | 0 | 3 | .96 |
| Eosinophils (%) | — | — | 2 | 3 | — | — | 0 | 4 | .41 |
| Mast cell (%) | — | — | 0 | 0 | — | — | 0 | 0 | .71 |
| Cytologic diagnosis score | — | — | 1 | 1 | — | — | 0 | 0 | .78 |
BALF, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid; MA, manual aspiration; SPA, suction pump aspiration.
A positive value indicates that SPA was higher than MA, whereas a negative value indicates that MA was higher than SPA.
Values <0.05 indicate that results were significantly different between the MA and SPA techniques.
Scored on the basis of cytologic evaluation using a scale of 0–4 (0 = <10 cells/slide; 1 = 10–100 cells/slide; 2 = 101–200 cells/slide; 3 = 201–500 cells/slide; 4 = >500 cells/slide).
Scored on the basis of cytologic evaluation using a scale of 0–4 (0 = <10% well‐preserved cells/slide; 1 = 10–25% well‐preserved cells/slide; 2 = 26–50% well‐preserved cells/slide; 3 = 51–80% well‐preserved cells/slide; 4 = >80% well‐preserved cells/slide).
Scored on the basis of cytologic evaluation using a scale of 0–3 (0 = ≤1% cells/slide; 1 = 2–3% cells/slide; 2 = 4–5% cells/slide; 3 = ≥6% cells/slide).
Scored on the basis of cytologic evaluation on a scale of 0–4 (0 = absent; 1 = <50 cells/slide; 2 = 51–100 cells/slide; 3 = 101–200 cells/slide; 4 = >201 cells/slide).
Scored on the basis of cytologic evaluation on a scale of 0–4 (0 = absent; 1 = <5 cells/slide; 2 = 6–10 cells/slide; 3 = 11–20 cells/slide; 4 = >21 cells/slide).