Hematological profile
The mean values of hemoglobin in between the groups were found to be significant described in Table 2. These findings are in agreement with
Pareta et al. (2011),
Kulkarni et al. (2012),
Oburai et al. (2015) and
Athaley (2018). However, these observations are in contrast with those of
Cowgill and Francey (2005) who reported with pre-renal azotemia, normal hemoglobin levels were seen. The decline in the Haemoglobin level in the study could be attributed to the impaired function of the kidney to stimulate erythropoiesis with the hormone Erythropoietin. Less erythropoiesis fails to stimulate the bone marrow for enough production of red blood cells effectively causing a decrease in the haemoglobin levels.
The mean values of total erythrocyte count in between groups
i.e. G2 and G5 were found to be significant. These findings were consistent with
Mrudula et al. (2005) and
Srivastava et al. (2011). These findings are suggestive of anemia in affected dogs. Anemia could be due to reduced erythropoietin formation (Table 2).
The difference in mean total leukocyte count values between the groups was non-significant (Table 2). These findings were in accordance with
Cowgill and Francy (2005),
Manu and Kuttan (2009),
Rajpoot and Mishra (2011),
Oladele et al. (2011),
Bhowmik et al. (2012) and
Kumari (2013). However, the findings were partially in accordance with the findings of
Lew et al. (2006) and
Mugford et al. (2013). In acute kidney disease, infection or massive tissue damage can lead to an increase in leukocytes. Hence, indicates the presence of inflammation, having either infectious or non-infectious origin.
The difference in mean packed cell volume (%) between the groups was found significant (Table 2). These observations are in agreement with the earlier published reports of
Oburai et al. (2015) and
Athaley (2018). The low packed cell volume before treatment might be due to the decreased hemoglobin value as directly correlated with hemoglobin value.
Biochemical profile
The difference in mean serum creatinine between the groups was found significant.(Table 3). These observations are similar of
Yadav et al. (2011),
Pareta et al. (2011),
Kulkarni et al. (2012),
Kumari (2013),
Athaley (2018) and
Thade (2019). An increase in creatinine levels could be due to decreased kidney function. The reduction in the creatinine levels (post-treatment) can be explained due to the diuretic effect of the herbal plants and their phytoconstituents.
The difference in mean blood urea nitrogen between the groups was found significant (Table 3). These findings are similar to
Banjare et al. (2012),
Kumari (2013),
Nigamand et al. (2016) and
Athaley (2018). The property of herbal plants has been attributed to their free radical scavenging activity and nephroprotective activity which may account for a reduction of blood urea nitrogen levels.
The difference in mean alkaline phosphatase between the groups was found significant (Table 3). These findings are corroborated by the earlier reports by
Eubig et al. (2005),
Puri et al. (2015),
Sumit et al. (2018) and
Rimer et al. (2022). It may be due to the plasma alkaline phosphatase activity originating from the liver, bone and intestine.
The difference in mean serum aspartate aminotransferase values between the groups was found significant (Table 3). The results of the present study were similar to
Eubig et al. (2005),
Puri et al. (2015),
Sumit et al. (2018) and
Rimer et al. (2022). This could be indicative of the severity of the disease manifested by extra-renal complications such as pancreatitis, liver injury,
etc.
Urinary parameters
The difference in mean urine pH between the groups was non-significant. A similar finding by
Rani (2004),
Kumar (2009),
Kumari (2013) and (
Thade 2019). It may be due to the reason that urine pH tends to vary throughout the day because it is influenced by diet and digestion. Changes in urine pH at any time may be masked by retained urine with a different pH.
The difference in mean urine protein values between the groups was found significant. These findings correlate with
Graner (2007),
Kumar et al. (2011),
Srivastava et al. (2011),
Kumari (2013),
Puri et al. (2015) and
Athaley (2018). It may be due to severe glomerular injury with nephrotic syndrome, tubule-interstitial inflammation and endothelial dysfunction.
The difference in mean urine specific gravity between the groups was non-significant. These observations are consistent with
Labato (2000), Stanley and
Langston (2008),
Pareta et al. (2011), and
Kumari (2013). Suggestive reason for the unchanged specific gravity of urine in renal failure dogs is acute nephritis, oliguric phase of renal failure, protein-losing nephrotoxic nephrosis and early renal dysfunction.
