Table 1.

Recommendations for screening of canine blood donors for blood‐borne pathogens

Agenta	Optimal Standardsb	Minimal Standards	Comments
Vector‐borne pathogens—testing recommended
Anaplasma phagocytophilum	Seronegative and PCR negative dogs	PCR negative dogs. Seronegative dogs are an acceptable alternative if serologic testing is more economical or yields more rapid turnaround time than PCR.	In areas endemic for Ixodes spp., identification of seronegative donors may be difficult. Therefore, use of seropositive but PCR negative dogs as donors is considered acceptable in this situation. Seronegative dogs are rarely PCR positive and so serological testing alone could be considered if serologic testing is more economical or yields more rapid turnaround time than PCR.
Anaplasma platys	Seronegative and PCR negative dogs	PCR negative dogs. Seronegative dogs are an acceptable alternative if serologic testing is more economical or yields more rapid turnaround time than PCR.	In areas endemic for Rhipicephalus tick spp., identification of seronegative donors may be difficult. Therefore, use of seropositive but PCR negative dogs as donors is considered acceptable in this situation. Seronegative dogs are rarely PCR positive and so serological testing alone could be considered if serologic testing is more economical or yields more rapid turnaround time than PCR. Not all serological assays are known to detect A. platys antibodies and so the minimal standard is the PCR.
Babesia canis vogeli	Seronegative and PCR negative, especially in high risk dogs	PCR negative	High risk dogs include greyhounds and those with a history of exposure to Rhipicephalus ticks.
Babesia gibsoni	Seronegative and PCR negative, especially in high risk dogs	PCR negative	High risk dogs include pitbull terriers and donors that have had a history of aggressive interactions with pitbull terriers.
Other Babesia spp.	PCR negative dogs	PCR negative dogs or no screening	Serology is not available; distribution is limited and so screening could be considered optional.
Bartonella henselae	Seronegative and BAPGM culture‐PCR negative dogs	PCR negative dogs	Serology is negative in over 50% of clinical cases and should not be used alone for screening. PCR without BAPGM culture enrichment is insensitive for detection of Bartonella bacteremia in dogs, but the overall prevalence of infection in dogs is low. When testing with BAPGM culture‐PCR is not practical because of expense and/or turnaround time, either serology combined with PCR or PCR alone could be considered.
Bartonella vinsonii var. berkhoffi	Seronegative and BAPGM culture‐PCR negative dogs	PCR negative dogs	See Bartonella henselae
Other Bartonella spp.	BAPGM culture‐PCR negative dogs	No screening	Serologic assays are species‐specific and are not available for many species; most are not as prevalent as B. henselae or B. vinsonii and their pathogenicity is less well established.
Ehrlichia canis	Seronegative and PCR negative dogs	Seronegative dogs or PCR negative dogs	All donors should be screened. Seronegative dogs are rarely PCR positive and so serological testing alone could be considered if serologic testing is more economical or yields more rapid turnaround time than PCR. In contrast to A. phagocytophilum, seropositive dogs should not be used as donors, as E. canis is a significant pathogen and PCR assays are insensitive for ruling out the presence of infection in chronically infected dogs.
Ehrlichia chaffeensis	Seronegative and PCR negative dogs	PCR negative in dogs from high risk areas; no screening in low risk areas	High risk areas are the southeastern United States and the mid‐Atlantic states. Not all serological assays are known to detect antibodies to E. chaffeensis.
Ehrlichia ewingii	Seronegative and PCR negative dogs	Seronegative dogs or PCR negative dogs in high risk areas; no screening in low risk areas	High risk areas are those endemic for Amblyomma americanum ticks. Not all serological assays are known to detect antibodies to E. ewingii.
Hepatozoon canis/americanum	PCR negative dogs	No screening	Serologic assays are not available for routine diagnosis in the United States. Testing using PCR is strongly recommended in endemic regions (south‐eastern and south‐central United States). Natural transmission requires ingestion of an infected tick; transmission by blood transfusion has not been documented.
Leishmania donovani	Seronegative and PCR negative	Seronegative and PCR negative in high risk dogs; no screening in low risk dogs	High‐risk dogs include foxhounds, foxhound/crosses, or dogs living in or traveling to endemic areas.
Mycoplasma haemocanis	PCR negative dogs	PCR negative dogs	Serologic assays are not available. Cytologic examination of blood smears is not accurate. The organism can be a primary pathogen and so PCR screening is recommended.
“Candidatus Mycoplasma haematoparvum”	PCR negative dogs	No screening	Serologic assays are not available. Cytologic examination of blood smears is not accurate. The organism is not considered a primary pathogen and so screening could be considered optional.
Neorickettsia risticii	PCR negative dogs	No screening	Serologic assays are not available. The organism has only rarely been detected in dogs.
Rickettsia felis	PCR negative dogs	No screening	Serologic assays are not available. While R. felis has been detected in the blood of dogs with heavy flea infestations, it has not been associated with disease in dogs and so screening could be considered optional.
Trypanosoma cruzi	Seronegative dogs	No screening	Transfusion‐related infections have not been reported in dogs and so screening could be considered optional. Screening is primarily recommended in endemic areas (southern United States, primarily southeastern Texas)
Non vector‐borne pathogens—testing recommended
Brucella canis	Seronegative dogs	No screening	A single negative serology result is considered sufficient in neutered donors, but screening should be repeated in sexually active dogs. Healthy neutered dogs that are not from a kennel and without a breeding history are unlikely to be exposed.
Other pathogens—testing not recommended
Borrelia burgdorferi	No screening	No screening	Transfusion‐related infections not reported
Neorickettsia helminthoeca	No screening	No screening	Neorickettsia helminthoeca has not been documented to cause persistent subclinical infections and so is not likely to be transfused from a healthy dog.
Rickettsia rickettsii	No screening	No screening	Rickettsia rickettsii has not been documented to cause persistent subclinical infections and so is not likely to be transfused from a healthy dog.
West Nile virus	No screening	No screening	No persistent infections; no transfusion‐related infections described.

^aSee the text for further discussion of geographic distribution and risk factors.

^bSee the text for further discussion of specific tests.