Quote:
Originally Posted by Melina
I just looked it up and this is what I found:
"Heartgard (slow kill)
The "slow kill" method, which is a newer approach, is the one prefered by us for treatment of dogs who are in Stage 1 of the infection. It consists of giving the dog Heartgard on a monthly basis. This heartworm preventative medication has some effect against the adult worms and should gradually eliminate them over a period of one to two years; without treatment, the worms can live up to five years. The earlier the treatment is started after infection, the more quickly it will work to eliminate the adult worms. Note that only Heartgard (ivermectin) should be used, as Revolution (selamectin) affects far fewer adult worms, and Interceptor (milbemycin oxime) almost none at all.
Although this method is gentler than the use of Immiticide, the danger from the dying worms is still present, and for a much longer period. A recent Italian study showed that pet dogs (as opposed to the caged laboratory dogs this method had been tested on before) did get pulmonary emboli and some of the dogs died of it. The more active the dog, the higher the risk"
Edit:
I found this website too, how odd is this, another GSD Koda with heartworm:
Slow Kill Heartworm Treatment For Dogs
*One more edit quote:
"Definitely the "long slow kill" does work, but with many risks. There was an Italian study presented at the American Heartworm Society Symposium this year (2004) that followed actual client owned dogs treated with this approach, and the incidence of pulmonary changes and other problems was very high - higher than with the standard "fast kill" protocol.
If you use the "slow kill" method, which takes around 18 months to three years to kill the worms, you have to keep the dog quiet for the whole time. It might be safer than the immiticide (it's basically just giving the regular preventative dose of Heartgard once each month - not a higher dose) from the point of view of drug reactions, but the risk of emboli is the same, or even worse, since you're stretching it out over a much longer time." |
Yes everything I read says the risk is there for embolism either way, if my dog was not very active I might go the long route.
My sister adopted an older dog with a light case and did the ivermectin route, her dog did fine but she was an older not very active dog.
I did the 3 shot method, worse case though, it cost me about $700 and she had to stay calm inside for 2 months. She stayed at the vets overnight for one shot, then home for a month of no activity (though she wanted to) then a two night stay with two shots and another month of no activity, and she's free to do anything now, and gets monthly heartguard.
I would think that the risk of emboli would be fairly low for light case either way, you should talk it over with your vet.
My vet also told me they don't use arsenic any more, they used to, my dog as a kid in the 60's got a bad case, an the arsenic did harm her health, but she still lived to 16 but with health issues.
My vet said they isolated the particular chemical in arsenic that kills the worms and separate it out and that's what is used now. Unless the dog has some kind of allergic reaction they usually do fine.
If you want to see what they look like, watch this... if your squeemish don't watch it. This is a worst case where they have to physically go in and pull the worms out of the aorta and heart itself.