Journals / Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences / 2019 / Cilt: 43 - Sayı: 6

Risk and protective factors associated with gastrointestinal parasites of dogs from an urban area of Córdoba, Argentina

Pages
846–851
Publication Date
2022-11-04
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Overall prevalence of GI parasites was 45.23% (95% CI 40.83–49.62), and Ancylostoma caninum (30.83%) was the most frequent parasite, followed by Trichuris vulpis (9.94%), Cystoisospora spp.(7.71%), Toxocara canis (6.90%), and Giardia spp. (5.88%).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Prevalence of gastrointestinal (GI) parasites and the effect of associated factors were evaluated in household dogs from anurban area of Córdoba, Argentina.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A total of 493 fecal samples were collected during 2010 and 2013 and processed with Willis’ salt,Sheather’s sugar flotation, and formol-ether concentration techniques.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Overall prevalence of GI parasites was 45.23% (95% CI 40.83–49.62), and Ancylostoma caninum (30.83%) was the most frequent parasite, followed by Trichuris vulpis (9.94%), Cystoisospora spp.(7.71%), Toxocara canis (6.90%), and Giardia spp. (5.88%).
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2010 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Prevalence of gastrointestinal (GI) parasites and the effect of associated factors were evaluated in household dogs from anurban area of Córdoba, Argentina. A total of 493 fecal samples were collected during 2010 and 2013 and processed with Willis’ salt,Sheather’s sugar flotation, and formol-ether concentration techniques. Overall prevalence of GI parasites was 45.23% (95% CI 40.83–49.62), and Ancylostoma caninum (30.83%) was the most frequent parasite, followed by Trichuris vulpis (9.94%), Cystoisospora spp.(7.71%), Toxocara canis (6.90%), and Giardia spp. (5.88%). Independent variables were presence of at least one parasite element, named“all parasites”, and each GI parasite more frequently detected was analyzed as separate outcomes. Logistic regression results showed anincreased risk related to age (P = 0.0343) for all parasites and for T. canis, Cystoisospora spp., and Giardia spp. Statistically significant andprotective variables were no ingestion of small animals, daily feces removal, and absence of shadow in house yards. Use of anthelminticsand daily feces removal for A. caninum, being female, and absence of shadow for T. canis resulted in protective factors. The role playedby veterinarians and owners’ commitment as key aspects, effective actions for prevention, control and treatment are required in theresearch area.

🔖

Cite This Article

ANGELO, C. D. D., MOTTA, C. E., RIVERO, M. R., TIRANTI, K. I., SBAFFO, A. M. (2022). Risk and protective factors associated with gastrointestinal parasites of dogs from an urban area of Córdoba, Argentina. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Cilt: 43 - Sayı: 6, 846–851. https://ajindex.com/articles/614817

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Rubel D, Zunino G, Santillán G, Wisnivesky C. Epidemiology of Toxocara canis in the dog population from two areas of different socioeconomic status, Greater Buenos Aires, Argentina. Vet Parasitol 2005; 115: 275-286
  2. Claerebout E, Casaert S, Dalemans AC, De Wilde N, Levecke B, Vercruysse J, Geurden T. Giardia and other intestinal parasites in different dog populations in Northern Belgium. Vet Parasitol 2009; 161: 41-46
  3. Zanzani SA, Gazzonis AL, Scarpa P, Berrilli F, Manfredi MT. Intestinal parasites of owned dogs and cats from metropolitan and micropolitan areas: Prevalence, zoonotic risks, and pet owner awareness in Northern Italy. BioMed Research International 2014; 2014: 696508
  4. Oliveira-Sequeira TCG, Amarante AFT, Ferrari TB, Nunes LC. Prevalence of intestinal parasites in dogs from Sao Paulo State, Brazil. Vet Parasitol 2002; 103: 19-27
  5. Bartmann A, Araújo FAP. Frequência de Giardia lamblia em cães atendidos em clínicas veterinárias de Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil. Ciência Rural 2004; 4: 1093-1096 (in Portuguese)
  6. Bianciardi P, Papini R, Giuliani G, Cardini G. Prevalence of Giardia antigen in stool samples from dogs and cats. Rev Méd Vét 2004; 155: 417-421
  7. Eguía-Aguilar P, Cruz-Reyes A, Martínez-Maya JJ. Ecological analysis and description of the intestinal helminths present in dogs in Mexico City. Vet Parasitol 2005; 127: 139-146
  8. Fontanarrosa MF, Vezzani D, Basabe J, Eiras DF. An epidemiological study of gastrointestinal parasites of dogs from southern greater Buenos Aires (Argentina): age, gender, breed, mixed infections, and seasonal and spatial patterns. Vet Parasitol 2006; 136: 283-295
  9. Camaño MC, López AE, Mozo G, Romero MS, Rivero AV, Saldaño MB, Soria EJ, Malandrini JB, Soria CC, Pizarro MC. Parásitos intestinales de caninos y felinos. Prevalencia en barrios de la ciudad de Chumbicha. Ciencia 2010; 5: 57-69 (in Spanish)
  10. Soriano SV, Pierangeli NB, Roccia I, Bergagna HFJ, Lazzarini LE, Celescinco A, Saiz MS, Kossman A, Contreras PA, Arias C, Basualdo JA. A wide diversity of zoonotic intestinal parasites infects urban and rural dogs in Neuquén, Patagonia, Argentina. Vet Parasitol 2010; 167: 81-85
  11. Dopchiz MC, Lavallén CM, Bongiovanni R, González PV, Elissondo C, Yannarella F, Denegri G. Endoparasitic infections in dogs from rural areas in the Lobos District, Buenos Aires province, Argentina. Rev Bras Parasitol Vet 2013; 22: 92-97
  12. La Sala LF, Leiboff A, Burgos JM, Costamagna SR. Spatial distribution of canine