Get access

Comparison of the buccal mucosal bleeding time in dogs using 3 different-sized lancet devices

Authors

  • Marcel Aumann,

    1. Internal Medicine, Department of Clinical Sciences, Université de Toulouse, INPT, ENVT, Toulouse, France
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Valentina Rossi,

    1. Internal Medicine, Department of Clinical Sciences, Université de Toulouse, INPT, ENVT, Toulouse, France
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Kevin Le Boedec,

    1. Internal Medicine, Department of Clinical Sciences, Université de Toulouse, INPT, ENVT, Toulouse, France
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Armelle Diquélou

    Corresponding author
    1. Internal Medicine, Department of Clinical Sciences, Université de Toulouse, INPT, ENVT, Toulouse, France
    • Correspondence

      Dr. Armelle Diquélou, Internal Medicine, Ecole nationale Veterinaire de Toulouse, 23 chemin des Capelles, BP 97614, 31076 Toulouse Cedex France

      E-mail a.diquelou@envt.fr

    Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

Background

The buccal mucosal bleeding time (BMBT) evaluates primary hemostasis in vivo. Three different-sized lancet devices designed for people, Adult (A), Junior (J), and Newborn (N), can be used to perform the BMBT in dogs.

Objectives

The aim was to compare BMBT using 3 different-sized human lancet devices in dogs with varying platelet counts and hematocrits.

Methods

The BMBT was measured in 46 client-owned dogs (2 healthy, 44 suffering from various disorders) with varying platelet (Plt) counts and hematocrits, using the 3 devices successively in each dog, in a randomly determined order, over a 10- to 30-minute period. Statistical analysis (ANOVA, Mann–Whitney U-test) was performed using commercial software.

Results

BMBTs were significantly different between devices (P < .00001), and shorter with devices N and J compared with device A (P < .01). The BMBT was prolonged (> 210 s) in 10 dogs with device A and in 7 dogs each with devices J and N, respectively. Sixteen dogs had a Plt count < 200 × 109/L (Reference interval 200–500 × 109/L). Nine of these dogs had prolonged BMBT with device A, and 6 dogs with device J and device N, respectively. BMBT was longer in thrombocytopenic dogs with devices A and J (P < .016). Anemia without thrombocytopenia did not affect BMBT with any device.

Conclusions

The BMBT is influenced by the size of the used device, with A resulting in the longest BMBT. Therefore, the type of device used to obtain the BMBT has to be specified for standardized results.

Ancillary