Advertisement

Parasitology Research

, Volume 109, Supplement 1, pp 45–60 | Cite as

Results of Parasitological Examinations of Faecal Samples from Cats and Dogs in Germany between 2003 and 2010

  • Dieter BarutzkiEmail author
  • Roland Schaper
Open Access
Article

Abstract

In a retrospective study, the results of parasitological examinations of faecal samples from 8,560 cats and 24,677 dogs between January 2003 and December 2010 in Germany were analysed. 30.4 % of the examined dogs and 22.8 % of the cats were infected with endoparasites. The examination of the faecal samples from dogs revealed stages of Giardia spp. (18.6 %), Toxocara canis (6.1 %), Toxascaris leonina (0.6 %), Ancylostomatidae (2.2 %), Trichuris vulpis (1.2 %), Capillaria spp. (1.3 %), Crenosoma vulpis (0.4 %), Angiostrongylus vasorum (0.5 %), Taeniidae (0.4 %), Dipylidiidae (< 0.1 %), Mesocestoides spp. (< 0.1 %), Isospora spp. (5.6 %), I. ohioensis-complex (3.9 %), I. canis (2.4 %), Sarcocystis spp. (2.2 %) and Hammondia heydorni/Neospora caninum (0.3 %). Dogs in the age groups up to 3 months and > 3 up to 6 months of age showed significantly higher infection rates with Giardia spp. (37.5 % and 38.2 %, respectively), Toxocara canis (12.0 % and 12.4 %, respectively), Toxascaris leonina (1.1 % and 1.6 %, respectively), Isospora spp. (23.4 % and 11.8 %, respectively), I. ohioensis-complex (15.6 % and 7.2 %, respectively) and I. canis (11.8 % and 5.2 %, respectively) compared to older dogs. In faecal samples from cats, stages of Giardia spp. (12.6 %), Toxocara cati (4.7 %), Toxascaris leonina (0.1 %), Ancylostoma tubaeforme (0.2 %), Aelurostrongylus abstrusus (0.5 %), Capillaria spp. (1.0 %), Taeniidae (0.6 %), Dipylidium caninum (< 0.1 %) Mesocestoides spp. (< 0.1 %), Isospora spp. (6.0 %), I. felis (4.4 %), I. rivolta (2.2 %), Toxoplasma gondii/Hammondia hammondi (0.8 %) and Sarcocystis spp. (0.3 %) were detected. Cats in the age groups up to 3 months and > 3 up to 6 months of age showed significantly higher infection rates with Giardia spp. (19.5 % and 24.0 %, respectively), T. cati (8.1 % and 6.9 %, respectively), Isospora spp. (12.8 % and 8.6 %, respectively), I. felis (10.0 % and 5.9%, respectively) and I. rivolta (4.6 % and 2.9%, respectively) compared to older cats.

Keywords

Faecal Sample Canis High Infection Rate Trichuris Toltrazuril 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Barutzki D, Schaper R (2003) Endoparasites in dogs and cats in Germany 1999 – 2002. Parasitol Res 90:148 – 150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barutzki D, Schaper R (2009) Natural infections of Angiostrongylus vasorum and Crenosoma vulpis in dogs in Germany (2007 – 2009). Parasitol Res 105 (Suppl 1):39 – 48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batchelor DJ, Tzannes S, Graham PA, Wastling JM, Pinchbeck GL, German AJ (2008) Detection of endoparasites with zoonotic potential in dogs with gastrointestinal disease in the UK. Transbound Emerg Dis 55:99 – 104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beelitz P, Leonhard S, Pfister, K (2006) Giardia infections in Germany: evaluation of treatment regimes carried out in different types of pet keeping and prevalence. Prakt Tierarzt 87:597 – 603.Google Scholar
  5. Buehl IE, Prosl H, Mundt H-C, Tichy AG, Joachim A (2006) Canine isosporosis – epidemiology of field and experimental infections. J Vet Med B 53:482 – 487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Claerebout E, Casaert S, Dalemans A, De Wilde N, Levecke B, Vercruysse J, Geurden T (2009) Giardia and other intestinal parasites in different dog populations in Northern Belgium. Vet Parasitol 161:41 – 46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coati N, Hellmann K, Mencke N, Epe C (2003) Recent investigation on the prevalence of gastrointestinal nematodes in cats from France and Germany. Parasitol Res 90 (Suppl 3):146 – 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daugschies A, Mundt H-C, Letkova V (2000) Toltrazuril treatment of cystoisosporosis in dogs under experimental and field conditions. Parasitol Res 86:797 – 799.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dubná S, Langrová I, Nápravník J, Jankovská I, Vadlejch J, Pekár S, Fechtner J (2007) The prevalence of intestinal parasites in dogs from Prague, rural areas, and shelters of the Czech Republic. Vet Parasitol 145:120 – 128.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Epe C, Coati N, Schnieder T (2004) Results of parasitological examinations of faecal samples from horses, ruminants, pigs, dogs, cats, hedgehogs and rabbits between 1998 and 2002. Dtsch Tierärztl Wochenschr 111:243 – 247.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Epe C, Rehkter G, Schnieder T, Lorentzen L, Kreienbrock L (2010) Giardia in symptomatic dogs and cats in Europe – results of a European study. Vet Parasitol 173:32 – 38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fok E, Szatmári V, Busák K, Rozgonyi F (2001) Prevalence of intestinal parasites in dogs in some urban and rural areas of Hungary. Vet Quart 23:96 – 98.Google Scholar
  13. Haralabidis ST, Papazachariadou MG, Koutinas AF, Rallis TS (1988) A survey on the prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites of dogs in the area of Thessaloniki, Greece. J Helminthol 62:45 – 49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hecking-Veltman J, Tenter AM, Daugschies A (2001) Studien zur Parasitenfauna bei streunenden Katzen im Raum Mönchengladbach. Prakt Tierarzt 82:563 – 569.Google Scholar
  15. Heusinger A (2007) Giardieninfektionen. Kleintierpraxis 52:245 – 248.Google Scholar
  16. Lindsay DS, Dubey JP, Blagburn BL (1997) Biology of Isospora spp. from humans, nonhuman primates, and domestic animals. Clin Microbiol Rev 10:19 – 34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Marti H, Escher E (1990) SAF – an alternative fixation solution for parasitological specimens. Schweiz Med Wochenschr 120:1473 – 1476.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Martínez-Carrasco C, Berriatua E, Garijo M, Martínez J, Alonso FD, de Ybáñez RR (2007) Epidemiological study of non-systemic parasitism in dogs in southeast Mediterranean Spain assessed by coprological and post-mortem examination. Zoonoses Public Health 54:195 – 203.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pullola T, Vierimaa J, Saari S, Virtala AM, Nikander S, Sukura A (2006) Canine intestinal helminths in Finland: prevalence, risk factors and endoparasite control practices. Vet Parasitol 140:321 – 326.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rohen M (2009) Endoparasitenbefall bei Fund- und Abgabehunden und -katzen in Niedersachsen und Untersuchungen zur Anthelminthikaresistenz. Inaugural Dissertation 2009, Stiftung Tierärztlich Hochschule Hannover.Google Scholar
  21. Sager H, Moret ChS, Grimm F, Deplazes P, Doherr MG, Gottstein B (2006) Coprological study on intestinal helminths in Swiss dogs: temporal aspects of anthelmintic treatment. Parasitol Res 98:333 – 338.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Scaramozzino P, Di Cave D, Berilli F, D’Orazi C, Spaziani A, Mazzanti S, Scholl F, De Liberato C (2009) A study of the prevalence and genotypes of Giardia duodenalis infecting kenneled dogs. Vet J 182:231 – 234.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Taubert A, Pantchev N, Vrhovec MG, Bauer C, Hermosilla C (2009) Lungworm infections (Angiostrongylus vasorum, Crenosoma vulpis, Aelurostrongylus abstrusus) in dogs and cats in Germany and Denmark in 2003 – 2007. Vet Parasitol 159:175 – 180.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Upjohn M, Cobb C, Monger J, Geurden T, Claerebout E, Fox M (2010) Prevalence, molecular typing and risk factor analysis for Giardia duodenalis infections in dogs in a central London rescue shelter. Vet Parasitol 172:341 – 346.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Veterinary Laboratory FreiburgFreiburg i. Br.Germany
  2. 2.Bayer Animal Health GmbHLeverkusenGermany

Personalised recommendations