Table 1.
Comparison of S. equi samples.
| S. equi Sample | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|
| Aspirate of mature abscessed lymph node | High yield of bacterial organisms | Requires this stage of disease |
| Moistened rostral nasal swaba | Ease of sampling | Animal needs to have active mucopurulent discharge |
| Moistened nasopharyngeal swaba | Ease of sampling | False negatives possible in early febrile state (not shedding yet) |
| False negatives possible due to intermittent shedding from guttural pouch | ||
| Nasopharyngeal wash | Ease of sampling | False negatives possible in early febrile state (not shedding yet) |
| Sampling more surface area | False negatives possible due to intermittent shedding from guttural pouch | |
| Was found to be more sensitive than nasopharyngeal swab29 | ||
| Guttural Pouch lavageb | Best for detection of carrier animals | Special equipment needed |
| Experience entering the guttural pouch | ||
| More time consuming | ||
| False negative if lymph nodes have not yet ruptured into the pouch |
a
Synthetic microfiber flocked swabs have not shown increased detection rates over traditional rayon or cotton swabs.
b
The committee recommends guttural pouch lavage qPCR for the detection of carriers with concurrent visual inspection of the guttural pouch via endoscopy. In order to limit the contamination of the environment and the veterinarians, we recommend collection directly from the guttural pouch, rather than free catch from the nasal passage.