Bile Acid Testing

[yorkiepup2]

Originally Posted by my2boyz

As a future breeder, and long time pet owner, I do see the need and responsibility for tests to ensure the dogs being bred are the healthiest possible. We went through almost 13 years of medical intervention with our first Yorkie, he had good days and bad, it was expensive and who knows what would have happened to him if we had not bought him. If his breeder would have done the proper tests on his parents maybe the breeding would never have taken place, granted, we wouldn't have had our Boog dog but it would have stopped a lot of unnecessary pain and suffering on both sides. Boog came from a litter of 5 but who knows how many other litters there were...where did those puppies end up and what did they have to go through in their lives? Were they given the advantage and benefit of a good and loving home that could afford their medical care or were those needs ignored? Don't get me wrong, I never complained about the cost of his care in all of those years but I sure did wish things were different for him.

As a future breeder I do plan to do whatever testing I need to do to ensure that my dogs are healthy enough for breeding, and it will give me and my future puppy owners peace of mind. I could not, in good conscience, blindly breed because I 'thought' everything was o.k...I need proof.

How can a breeder know that their lines do not have LS if they never test them? They can carry the genetics for a LS and never show signs.

[mdcote]

My hubby and I discussed this today and we're getting our 3 babies tested (just in case). A woman we knew had a Yorkie and didn't find out until after it died, at 5 years old that it had a liver shunt. She was so devastated.

I wouldn't want to go through that.

My vet suggested we do an ultrasound instead of BAT. He said this is a better way to detect a for liver shunt. Do you think we should do the ultrasound instead of a BAT? I've heard more discussion about Bile Acid Testing than ultrasound....so I'm wondering which is better?

[scoobiedooiscoo]

well as a buyer i know i will have my new puppy tested at 10-13 weeks and 9 months. i want to make sure it eather doesnt have it or i catch it early enough to start treating it before bad things happen. i do think that people should know about ls and mvd before buying a puppy so they can decide to test to be on the safe side.

[blitz]

Originally Posted by BakersDozen

Yes, of course I realize this. The breeder who doesn't have it done was talking about dogs with no history in their lines. (at least that is what I gathered, I might have misunderstood) That is what I was comparing to no 'family history.'

How do they know for sure? Puppies that die are not all autopsied. How about puppies that are resorbed or stillborn? I would venture a guess that any breeder who will have a necropsy performed on these puppies, will also go for the BAT.

I'm just pointing out that the mere fact that it is prevelant doesn't necessarily necessitate the testing of every dog.

Well, then how do YOU suggest that MVD be uncovered if it asymptomatic?

In the US, diabetes is much more prevelant in Mexican Americans, blacks, and American Indians. But it is not reasonable or necessary for every single person in those groups to automatically do a fasting test. They are tested when they show some sign or symptom, or when a routine test indicates otherwise.

Obviously, that analogy does not apply to the topic. If diabetes were rampent AND asymptomatic, I bet there would be routine testing.

I agree that there is no compelling reason NOT to BAT every Yorkie. But I also feel there is no compelling reason TO BAT every Yorkie, in the absence of any indication there might be a problem.....

Well, then how do you propose to work towards eradicting or at least controlling this disease?

Assuming there is great familiarity with the bloodline(s), and the other precautions already mentioned in this thread. (Please note I am not referring to breeding two dogs you know nothing about, without testing.) Since BAT won't tell you if you have two dogs with recessive genes, you could still produce offspring with liver shunt anyway.

But BAT could clear your dog inasmuch as you can clear a dog and that is all one can do. We can't sit on our hands and wait and wait for the genetic marker that is going to be found any day now and in the meantime continue to breed with crossed fingers.

Again, just my opinion.

To which you are entitled but you dont' sound proactive.

[blitz]

Originally Posted by BakersDozen

I just re-read your original question.....I guess upon reflection, I should not even have commented. You were asking a question of breeders; since I am not a breeder my opinion is not really what you wanted anyway. (I'm not saying this like I took offense, just apologizing for giving my opinion when it's not really the purpose of this thread.)

I do find it interesting that most of the comments have been from those with no experience breeding.

Please don't feel that way, your opinion is valuable because being involved in Yorkies in any way means you need to be educated on this disease and then form your own opinions, rather than just take someone elses opinion. We need to know the facts because there is a lot of emotion involved in this and the more minds that focus on it the better. For instance, puppy buyers could insist on BAT if they felt it was important enough.

[blitz]

Originally Posted by BakersDozen

I'm inclined to agree. Obviously I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, depending on their breeding program and other factors. But I don't blame them for not jumping in, no doubt this thread could go on and on.

It's not fear that the thread would go on and on, it's because nobody has a valid reason for not doing it other than a) not wanting to spend the money or b) not wanting to find out that their important breeding dog may have a problem. It is easier to put it off and go on and "wait" for the genetic test.

You can do BAT at a very early age, before you breed or finish a dog.

[my2boyz]

Originally Posted by mdcote

My hubby and I discussed this today and we're getting our 3 babies tested (just in case). A woman we knew had a Yorkie and didn't find out until after it died, at 5 years old that it had a liver shunt. She was so devastated.

I wouldn't want to go through that.

My vet suggested we do an ultrasound instead of BAT. He said this is a better way to detect a for liver shunt. Do you think we should do the ultrasound instead of a BAT? I've heard more discussion about Bile Acid Testing than ultrasound....so I'm wondering which is better?

An ultrasound is a pretty expensive test so most people don't start there. I've asked a couple breeders what route they take and some will start with a pre-op blood panel to see where the numbers are, go to a BAT if they feel they need to and do an ultrasound after that, if it's needed. Now, on another forum they were talking about a test that can be done after the BAT instead of jumping to the expensive ultrasound...it's called a protein C test and I believe they said it will tell if there is a shunt there. I guess it's all a matter of personal preference on the route you take but you might want to discuss that route again with your vet before you jump right into the most expensive test.

In my area the BAT is $96.00 per dog, not sure what a pre-op blood panel costs but I believe it's less than that, I don't know the cost of the protein C test and, if I remember correctly, the ultrasound for Boog several years ago was around $375.00. So, it might not hurt to talk with your vet about each test, find out exactly what each test will tell you and decide from there what you want to do.

[blitz]

Originally Posted by mdcote

My hubby and I discussed this today and we're getting our 3 babies tested (just in case). A woman we knew had a Yorkie and didn't find out until after it died, at 5 years old that it had a liver shunt. She was so devastated.

I wouldn't want to go through that.

My vet suggested we do an ultrasound instead of BAT. He said this is a better way to detect a for liver shunt. Do you think we should do the ultrasound instead of a BAT? I've heard more discussion about Bile Acid Testing than ultrasound....so I'm wondering which is better?

Well, since Sharon Center has devoted her career to LS and she suggest BAT, I'd go with that and a CBC. Good for you and your girls. This makes me so happy. I also think an ultrasound might be a lot more expensive.

[BakersDozen]

Well, as I said last night, I would also have the test done. So I think we are disagreeing, not on the testing, but on the reason(s) for doing it. I would have it done on any dog I bred for my own peace of mind, and so I would feel I had done all I could. But I feel that the incidence of liver shunt is much lower in well-bred, blood paneled dogs than in the general population, therefore the risk of a liver shunt puppy is much lower in well-bred dogs, therefore the importance of testing is not quite as high as in the general population of Yorkies.

I don't feel this thread is accomplishing it's stated purpose, which is to get opinions by breeders. If the purpose has changed and somebody wants to start a new thread discussing the need for bile acid testing, fine. But since I'm not a breeder, this will be my last post to this thread. By the way, diabetes can be present without overt symptoms.

[blitz]

Originally Posted by scoobiedooiscoo

well as a buyer i know i will have my new puppy tested at 10-13 weeks and 9 months. i want to make sure it eather doesnt have it or i catch it early enough to start treating it before bad things happen. i do think that people should know about ls and mvd before buying a puppy so they can decide to test to be on the safe side.

Yup. You obviously know that some dogs with mild disease need no futher treatment other than a special diet and can live just fine with it. But MVD/LS dogs often have problems with certain medications, so knowing there is a problem can avoid even bigger problems in the future.

[BakersDozen]

Originally Posted by blitz

It's not fear that the thread would go on and on, it's because nobody has a valid reason for not doing it other than a) not wanting to spend the money or b) not wanting to find out that their important breeding dog may have a problem. It is easier to put it off and go on and "wait" for the genetic test.

You can do BAT at a very early age, before you breed or finish a dog.

Ok, since you were posting as I was typing, I get to post again. lol I find it presumptuous to declare why someone is or isn't posting to this thread. Just because you don't find their reason for not testing valid does not mean it isn't. So much for the importance of forming your own opinion....obviously the only right one is the one you share.

As we agree on the testing itself, perhaps we can just agree to disagree on the reasons for BATing.

[blitz]

Originally Posted by BakersDozen

...Just because you don't find their reason for not testing valid does not mean it isn't.

What is a valid reason for not testing? Just give me one!

So much for the importance of forming your own opinion....obviously the only right one is the one you share.

well, what exactly is your opinion? You said you will do it yourself, so how can you argue against it?

As we agree on the testing itself, perhaps we can just agree to disagree on the reasons for BATing.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

[Ellie May]

Originally Posted by mdcote

My hubby and I discussed this today and we're getting our 3 babies tested (just in case). A woman we knew had a Yorkie and didn't find out until after it died, at 5 years old that it had a liver shunt. She was so devastated.

I wouldn't want to go through that.

My vet suggested we do an ultrasound instead of BAT. He said this is a better way to detect a for liver shunt. Do you think we should do the ultrasound instead of a BAT? I've heard more discussion about Bile Acid Testing than ultrasound....so I'm wondering which is better?

I'm really surprised your vet would say this. Ultrasounds are only 60-80% accurate and don't show MVD. They can be a waste of money. BAT comes first. I wouldn't waste my money on an u/s if the BAT didn't indicate it was needed.

[Ladymom]

Originally Posted by blitz

Well, since Sharon Center has devoted her career to LS and she suggest BAT, I'd go with that and a CBC. Good for you and your girls. This makes me so happy. I also think an ultrasound might be a lot more expensive.

Exactly! The protocol is to do a BAT, repeat in 4-6 weeks if abnormal, then do a Protein C test if that one is abnormal, too.

Both Dr. Center and Dr. Tobias do not recommend ultrasounds as the results are too unreliable. Dr. Center estimates that they are only 80% accurate and I believe Dr. Tobias rates them as low as 60%. Unfortunately, many vets aren't up on the current protocol and still waste time and money on them.

The preferred test after the Protein C test is scintigraphy.

Here is some fabulous information from Dr. Center:

http://www.vin.com/proceedings/Proce...2675&O=Generic

Since Yorkies are 36 times more likely to have a liver shunt than all other breeds combined according to Dr. Tobias' study done at the University of Tennessee, I think breeders must get more proactive about doing a BAT on all dogs they intend to breed and new owners must start insisting that their puppy have a BAT before he comes home as recommended by Dr. Center.

[blitz]

Perhaps the existence of asymptomatic MVD is why many dogs never get diagnosed and go on and breed and produce tragic LS dogs? A breeder who never did BAT on it's stock can produce an LS dog and can honstly claim that the parents had never been sick a day in its life. However, BAT may have revealed that the parent has MVD.

Now, what can breeders do with MVD puppies? Would buyers be willing to buy them?

Do breeders have an obligation to inform a buyer that the puppy has MVD since it can most likely live it's entire life with no problems other than it shouldn't be bred?

Can it be in contracts that a breeder will not warrant against MVD?

There are a lot of issues!