PREVALÊNCIA DE INFECÇÃO URINÁRIA E DE Actinomyces suis EM PORCAS GESTANTES E SUA CORRELAÇÃO COM ALGUNS PARÂMETROS FÍSICOS E QUÍMICOS DA URINA

Abstract

O presente trabalho teve como objetivo determinar a prevalência de infecção urinária e da bactéria Actinomyces suis na urina de 1745 porcas gestantes da região Sul do Brasil e correlacionar essa prevalência com parâmetros físicos e químicos da urina. A prevalência de infecção urinária e de A. suis foi de 28,31% e 20,63%, respectivamente. Observou-se correlação negativa entre infecção urinária e A. suis, ou seja, as porcas que apresentaram infecção urinária tinham menor prevalência de A. suis (13,67%) do que as que não a apresentaram (23,12%). Da mesma forma, as porcas portadoras de A. suis, tinham menor prevalência de infecção urinária (17,43%) do que as não portadoras (28,62%). Apenas 3,60% das porcas examinadas eram positivas para infecção urinária e A. suis simultaneamente. A cor predominante da urina foi a amarelo claro, tanto para as porcas portadoras ou não portadoras de infecção urinária ou de A. suis. Constatou-se a presença de turbidez em 83,15% das amostras, sendo que em 96,18% das amostras turvas observou-se a presença de cristais. Finalmente, a cor, aspecto, densidade, pH e presença de cristais, foram considerados como parâmetros sem valor para o diagnóstico presuntivo de infecção urinária em porcas gestantes. Prevalence of urinary tract infections and of Actinomyces suis in urine from pregnant sows. Correlation with some urine’s physical and chemical parameters Abstract A survey has been carried out in urine samples from 1745 pregnant sows from Southern Brazil, in regard to the prevalence of urinary infections and of Actinomyces suis and its correlation with some of the urine physical and chemical parameters. Prevalence of urinary infections was of 28.31% and that of A. suis, 20.63%. However, a negative correlation has been found between the incidence of urinary infection and the presence of A. suis, the prevalence of the latter being lower in sows which are positive for urinary infections (13.67%) than in those without urinary infection (23.12%). At the same time, sows positive for A. suis display a lesser number of urinary infection (17.43%) than those negative for the bacteria (28.62%). Only in 3.60% of the sows, urinary infection and A. suis occurred simultaneously. Due to the presence of crystals, turbidity was frequently observed in sow’s urine (83.15%). Crystals were present in 96.18% of sow’s turbid urine samples. Furthermore, color, turbidity, density, pH and the presence of crystals were not considered of value for the presumptive diagnosis of urinary tract infections in pregnant sows.

Correlation between urinary tract infection and reproductive performance of sows

“…In group II, 23.3% of samples were cloudy and 6.7% were cloudy with lumps. The physical evaluation showed that cloudy urine and with ammonia odor indicate the occurrence of UTI, as described by Alberton et al (2000), Pôrto et al (2003), and Menin et al (2008). No significant difference was found between groups I and II regarding labor duration, which took on average 347 min (Table 1).…”

“…When assessing physicochemical and microbiological aspects of the urine of culled sows, Pôrto et al (2003) observed prevalence of UTI in 45.7% of urine samples. Through diagnosis using reagent strips, Alberton et al (2000) identified high prevalence (28.3%) for urinary tract diseases. Thus, the prevalence of UTI is high, and its occurrence can vary according to different risk factors on farms.…”

“…Sows were considered positive for UTI if the reagent strip tests indicated presence of nitrite and/or blood in the samples, as described by Alberton et al (2000), Pôrto et al (2003), and Menin et al (2008).…”

Physical, chemical and biological aspects of the urine of sows in a certificated swine reproduction farm in the city of Toledo, Paran, Brazil

“…Urine collections were performed during spontaneous urination of sows, before the first feeding, discarding the first urine streams and colleting a minimum sample of 100 mL, starting from the second half of urination. These samples were collected in sterile flasks, open only at the time of collection (Vaz et al, 2007;Alberton et al, 2000).…”

“…Urinary tract infection is defined by the penetration and/or multiplication and colonization of pathogenic micro-organisms in the urinary tract, reaching all or part of the urinary system (Sobestiansky et al, 1995;Matos et al, 2005). Urinary infections in swine affect mainly sows, causing a pronounced reduction in productivity indexes of commercial farms, with an epidemiological prevalence of up to 30% (Alberton et al, 2000).…”