Why the study?
Does oesophagoscopy with mucosal biopsy RT-PCR improve detection of BVDV compared to conventional sampling in infected animals?
Does oesophagoscopy with mucosal biopsy RT-PCR improve detection of BVDV compared to conventional sampling in infected animals?
Oesophageal biopsy via oesophagoscopy provides a highly sensitive method for detecting BVDV infection, even in transiently infected animals where conventional samples may fail.
May support oesophageal biopsy RT-PCR for BVDV detection in research cattle; leaves open clinical adoption pending validation.
The endoscopic appearance of the oesophagus of animals infected with bovine virus diarrhoea virus (BVDV) but without signs of acute mucosal disease (MD) was investigated for any common or 'early warning' lesions. Thirty-seven BVDV-infected animals [36 persistently infected (PI) and one transiently infected] were examined clinically and endoscopically for typical erosions of the oronasal and oesophageal mucosa, respectively. During oesophagoscopy, mucosal biopsies were taken and tested for pestivirus-specific nucleic acids by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). The results were compared with those of RT-PCR with various sample materials (blood, nasal and conjunctival swabs and faecal samples) usually used for routine diagnosis of BVDV infection. The average age of the 36 PI animals was 13.5 months, eight animals were 24 months or older. None of the PI animals had clinically visible erosions of the oronasal mucous membranes. During oesophagoscopy, all animals showed a reddening but unexpectedly no erosions or ulcerations of the oesophageal mucosa. Although in 21 of 36 PI animals all samples tested positive, the oesophageal biopsies were with no exception constantly RT-PCR positive in contrast to all other materials investigated. Remarkably, in the transiently infected animal all samples tested negative except for the oesophageal biopsy. Hence, this infection would have been missed by conventional diagnostic sampling.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Franz et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: