Question on heart worm treatment

[Dixie_Girl]

I took Holly in this morning for her initial treatment. When I first found out about her having heartworms, they, the vet tech and vet(not my regular vet but one that works with him) laid out what the treatment would be and the cost. It intailed first, a treatment in the a.m., an overnight stay, a treatment the next a.m. and then me picking her up that early evening. Then 3 wks later, another early a.m. treatment, and me picking her up that late afternoon. Then 3 wks. later, she would get an oral treatment and then 3 wks later a test and put on prevenitive. 6 mos. later a final test and (hopefully) clean bill of health. But, this morning, the tech said she didn't know why the told me all that. Holly had a "light" test result, so the "one" treatment is not neccesary. In other words, the second treatment I outlined above is not done. She said if Holly had come back "heavy", they would have done the one treatment first, then the two treatments 3 wks later and the rest would be the same.

 

Anyone who has had experience with heartworm treatment, can y'all help me out here! I reckon I will wait till I pick her up tomorrow and talk to Dr. Patterson my self! But, good grief, I am confused!

[painted_ponies]

Linda, I'm certainly no vet, but I believe the reason for splitting the dose into more treatments is to avoid having large numbers of adult worms dying off at once, which can cause problems. With a light infestation, you wouldn't need to kill off the worms as gradually as you would with a heavy infestation. But this is a guess on my part. Here's a link I found that explains how the the treatment works:Heartworm Treatment

 

The fact that she has a light infestation may explain the false negative result she got on her HW test. I bet the shelter does the kind of test where they draw blood, spin it, and do a visual inspection under a microscope for microfilariae, instead of doing an antigen test, which is more sensitive. I guess in future we need to ask what sort of HW test was performed.

[jrid]

I have heard of some dogs with a very light case of heartworms were just put on monthly Ivermectin and after a year or so had negative heartworm tests.

[painted_ponies]

I have heard of some dogs with a very light case of heartworms were just put on monthly Ivermectin and after a year or so had negative heartworm tests.

 

That's what the rescues did after Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, because there were so many HW+ dogs and not enough $$ to treat them all. Although several organizations did make grant money available to people who adopted HW+ refugee dogs, which I thought was really great of them.

 

Anyway, I think the downside to ivermectin treatment is that of course the adult heartworms aren't killed off, just prevented from reproducing. Eventually, the adults get old and die, but that can take up to two years. In the meantime, the dog still has heartworm disease. There's also risk of anaphylactic shock from many microfilariae dying at once, so most vets recommend keeping the dog under observation at a clinic for the first dose. But this method is way better than doing nothing and for lots of rescues, paying for the immiticide treatments is out of their price range.

 

Sorry to sound like such a know-it-all. I've been reading up recently because my newest foster is coming out of a south Ga. shelter and AFAIK has not been on preventative. It's winter and he's got a heavy coat, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed. But I'm also reading up on treatment options.

[MaryP]

The last dog that I had that was treated for heartworm was also a light positive. He only received the initial two shots - one in one hip, then another in the other hip the next day. My vet also told me that I could start him on the oral preventative right away.

 

A friend of mine who does rescue has a HW+ bc foster that she is treating with the oral ivermectin instead of the injections. She has done it with several fosters with success. The dog that she has now is a light positive and she and her vet thought that the 6-8 weeks of crate confinement would be much harder on the dog (a high energy bc) then just doing the slow, long-term treatment. I'm kind of on the fence about it. It can be tough to keep them confined for that long, but they do seem to resign themselves to their fate pretty quickly. My foster was a trooper about the confinement, even though I felt horrible about doing it. But, I think that if I had to crate-confine the foster that I currently have for that long, I would have to be taking some serious drugs the entire time or move out of the house because I don't think he'd adjust well at all.

[painted_ponies]

Oh, wow, good point Mary. I hadn't thought about the confinement period. The last dog I had anything to do with treating was a chow. Whole different level of (non) energy.

[Dixie_Girl]

I think one of the main reasons they didn't want to do the preventitive meds was because they were told she was 10 and felt that especially with a rescue who would be rehomed, it would be better to do it this way. The preventitive HAS to be given on schedule or the adults could make babies and it doesn't kill the babies. Good info alll! I have been practicing with the confinement issuses, and I think she must have been either a working dog, or a brood bitch, cuz she adapted to it very easily.

Thanks all!

[MaryP]

The preventitive HAS to be given on schedule or the adults could make babies and it doesn't kill the babies.

 

This is the main reason that I'm not really comfortable using this method with rescues. It's likely the dog will be rehomed while still being treated and you have to then trust the people who adopt the dog to keep up with the treatment, religiously.