Claudio Marcello Melini
Mariana Kikuti
Xiaomei Yue
Cesar A. Corzo- Department of Veterinary Population Medicine, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN, United States
Live pig specimen collection can be time-consuming as it may require physical restraining. Non-invasive methods for live animals that don't involve blood spillage are available but some may present limitations of application or pathogen detection. Alternative methods focused on the mortality are also available but may derive in blood spillage. As biocontainment and bioexclusion are of concern, especially for pathogens such as the ones that cause classical swine fever and African swine fever, alternative methods can be applied. This article presents the results and opinions of the use cardiac puncture (CP) as an alternative of specimen collection from dead pigs. This method was used in two separate studies involving porcine reproductive and respiratory virus detection from blood of dead pigs of different ages. Blood was successfully obtained from 286 suckling and growing pigs, that were euthanized or died during outbreaks of the tested virus. While only 273 samples could be tested due to the other 13 not yielding enough sera of having inhibitors, of those 95% had positive detections for the virus. This method was not only feasible for obtaining blood and test the sera, but also avoided environmental contamination with blood, offering an alternative tool for collection during outbreak investigations.
Introduction
Successful diagnostic specimen collection from live pigs requires time and skills. Non-invasive pre-mortem sample collection methods using swabs (i.e., oral, nasal, rectal, genital tract), wipes (i.e., udder, snout), semen, tonsil oral scraping, and oral fluids require a short interaction with the pig and for most, lack of physical restraining (1–3). Blood sampling is considered invasive, and in pigs there is the need for physical restrain for the safety of the animal and sample collector (2). Alternative sampling can be conducted in breeding herds by using the recovered serosanguinous fluid from testicles and tails after piglet castration and tail docking (processing fluids) (4–7), but in countries where these activities are forbidden because of animal welfare (8) or in grow-finishing herds were these practices are not conducted, post-mortem sampling can be an alternative for specimen collection during both endemic and foreign animal disease (FAD) infectious disease outbreak diagnostic investigations. Post-mortem sampling collection it is usually
performed through a necropsy to assess macroscopic lesions and collect specimens for different types of testing (i.e., histology, molecular diagnosis, bacterial and viral isolation). Blood spillage during necropsy is common, as the incisions made to reach specific organs may cut blood vessels. In swine farms, necropsies can be performed by workers or veterinarians, in the case of the former they can request for support to identify lesions by a trained professional using telemedicine, but this can have its own limitations (9). Routine specimen collection and diagnosis in swine farms may be limited to its easiness of obtention, availability, staff qualification, and suspected agent. But ultimately, it should be driven by a well-defined diagnostic question (10). In the case of a disease such as porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) which is endemic in most pig producing countries, blood contaminated (11) surfaces are of concern as these can act as fomites. However, in the case of an FAD such as African swine fever virus (ASFV), it has been reported that the virus can remain viable in putrefied blood for 15 weeks at room temperature (12), meaning environmental contamination with blood during these investigations represent an important dissemination risk which during the early stages of the epidemic needs to be mitigated. Even though blood is a preferred diagnostic specimen given its proved value (13), tissue collection during ASFV and classical swine fever virus (14) investigations is common. Minimal invasive post-mortem specimen collection alternatives are needed. Cardiac puncture (CP) blood collection can be easily obtained as an alternative for pathogen detection, as it is a method known anecdotally amongst veterinarians. Although, it has been described in vivo for swine (15) and poultry (16) it is not frequently used in swine practice. In this perspective article, we share our experience using post-mortem CP in two separate studies for the detection of PRRS virus (PRRSV) while comparing it to other commonly used specimens.
Post-mortem intracardiac blood collection
From both studies (17, 18), blood samples were collected at five Midwestern United States farms in which three were breed-to-wean and two were growing pig farms undergoing a PRRSV outbreak. The age of inclusion and sample size for each study was determined based on the objectives of each of the studies, such as the detection of at least one PRRSV PCR-positive pig at different within herd prevalence, or by conveniently selecting three ages of growing pigs (6-, 12- and 15 weeks of age). At each farm, recently dead or humanely euthanized pigs (i.e., <24 h) were included in the study. First, pigs were put on the ground at an area designated by the farm workers, managers, or veterinarians. Afterwards, the pigs were put on right lateral recumbency on a flat surface and, by using the proximal end of the ulna, also known as the olecranon, the area within the thoracic cavity where the heart lies would be identified. Once the punction area was identified, a sterile needle was introduced perpendicularly in-between the ribs and through the intercostal muscles to reach the heart (Figures 1, 2).
Figure 1. Photos of cardiac puncture blood collection sequence from a dead weaned pig. (A) Placement of pig on right lateral recumbency (forelimb is depicted in purple, ribs are marked in black); (B) Identification of puncture area (intersection between olecranon and intercostal space); (C) Marked puncture area with an X after releasing the forelimb; and (D) Insertion of needle in puncture area, retraction of the syringe's plunger, and collection of intracardiac blood.
Figure 2. Photos of cardiac puncture blood collection sequence from a dead weaned pig. (A) Placement of pig on right lateral recumbency (forelimb is depicted in green, ribs are marked in black); (B) Identification of puncture area (intersection between olecranon and intercostal space); (C) Marked puncture area with an X; and (D) Insertion of needle in puncture area, retraction of the syringe's plunger, and collection of intracardiac blood.
If a vacutainer system was used and blood would not immediately fill the collection tube, the thoracic cavity was compressed by placing the sampler hand on the thorax and with the index and middle fingers either side of the thoracic cavity lightly pressing the chest. In the case of the use of a syringe, aspiration was performed until 3–10 ml of blood was collected.
For newborn and suckling piglets, a 20G × 1 ” needle (BD Vacutainer® PrecisionGlide™, Becton, Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) attached to a vacutainer tube holder (BD Vacutainer® one-use holder, Becton, Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) was used. For growing pigs, blood collection was performed using the same puncture method used for suckling piglets but in this case a 16G × 3” needle (Air-Tite Products Co., Inc., Virginia Beach, VA, USA) attached to a 10 ml syringe was used. Once the blood sample was obtained, it was transferred to a sterile blood collection tube without anticoagulant (BD Vacutainer®, Becton, Dickinson and Company, NJ, USA). Samples were then submitted to the University of Minnesota diagnostic veterinary laboratory for RT-PCR testing for PRRSV as this pathogen was the main target of both of the studies.
A total of 286 CP blood samples were collected originating from 196 suckling and 90 growing pigs. In nine cases, sample collection did not yield enough serum volume for testing, and in four, the RT-PCR reaction was inhibited. Out of the remaining 273 samples, PRRSV was detected in 95% of the samples with a median [quartile (Q) 1, Q3] cycle threshold value of 21.5 (17.1, 28.5), a minimum of 10.8 and maximum of 35.5.
Practical insights and broader applications for disease surveillance
Our results highlight the feasibility of obtaining blood samples from recently dead pigs of different ages through CP for viral disease (i.e., PRRSV) diagnosis and surveillance. Obtaining this sample was not only possible but welfare-friendly and avoided blood spillage and thus environmental contamination, supporting our efforts for disease containment. If attempting to collect this blood sample, certain aspects have to be considered. For instance, in our case the detection of PRRSV was not a definitive indication that this was the cause of death which indicates that finding a specific pathogen using this method should not be used as a definitive diagnosis. Another consideration is that the time between death and sampling can influence not only sample collection success but also pathogen detection. The size of the pig also needs to be taken into consideration, particularly regarding the collection materials utilized. Furthermore, non-veterinary personnel will require some training related to the anatomy of the thoracic cavity of the pig; however, we believe that this sampling technique can be quickly and effectively taught. While the data presented focused on PRRSV detection, it can be speculated that other viruses reaching the blood stream may also be detected in blood samples obtained from dead pigs. Lastly, this specimen should be considered as a complementary sampling tool, especially during outbreak investigations as CP is not intended to replace a full necropsy which is key for definitive diagnosis in pigs with clinical disease.
Conclusion
Blood collection from dead pigs is a viable welfare-friendly alternative for PRRSV detection. After training to collect this specimen, CP is an alternative to obtaining a blood sample for surveillance and diagnosis of pathogens of interest (i.e., PRRSV, ASF, CSF) while minimizing blood spillage and environmental contamination which can increase the risk of pathogen dissemination.
Data availability statement
Additional data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Requests to access these datasets should be directed to Y29yem9AdW1uLmVkdQ==.
Ethics statement
The animal studies were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the University of Minnesota (protocol 2208-4034). For the other study, ethical review and approval were waived due to euthanasia procedures being conducted following the guidelines of the American Veterinary Medical Association, by the veterinarian and personnel; this study was conducted on dead animals. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent was obtained from the owners for the participation of their animals in this study.
Author contributions
CM: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MK: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. XY: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. CC: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This work was partially funded by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, HATCH project 719 MIN-62-137, and the Swine Health Information Center (SHIC) Project # 23-063.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the swine practitioners, farm owners and workers for allowing us to conduct this work. The authors would also like to thank Cesar Lopes Horta, Gabriela Torres, and Erick Morales for their contributions.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Li P, Silva APSP, Moraes DCDA, Yeske P, Osemeke OH, Magalhães ES, et al. Comparison of a novel rapid sampling method to serum and tonsil scraping to detect PRRSV in acutely infected sows. Prev Vet Med. (2024) 223:106082. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2023.106082
2. Turlewicz-Podbielska H, Włodarek J, Pomorska-Mól M. Noninvasive strategies for surveillance of swine viral diseases: a review. J Vet Diagn Investig. (2020) 32:503–12. doi: 10.1177/1040638720936616
3. Abhishek, Nair SS, Prajapati S, Thomas P, Kumar B, Chaturvedi VK, et al. Chapter 19—Guidelines for diagnostic sample collection in pigs. In:Chauhan A, Tarafdar A, Gaur GK, Jadhav SE, Tiwari R, Dutt T, , editors. Commercial Pig Farming. Academic Press (2025). p. 323–41. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-443-23769-0.00019-1
4. Lopez WA, Angulo J, Zimmerman JJ, Linhares DCL. Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome monitoring in breeding herds using processing fluids. J Swine Health Prod. (2018) 26:146–50. doi: 10.54846/jshap/1055
5. Vilalta C, Sanhueza J, Garrido J, Murray D, Morrison R, Corzo CA, et al. Indirect assessment of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus status in pigs prior to weaning by sampling sows and the environment. Vet Microbiol. (2019) 237:108406. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2019.108406
6. Vilalta C, Sanhueza J, Alvarez J, Murray D, Torremorell M, Corzo C, et al. Use of processing fluids and serum samples to characterize porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus dynamics in 3 day-old pigs. Vet Microbiol. (2018) 225:149–56. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2018.09.006
7. Trevisan G, Jablonski E, Angulo J, Lopez WA, Linhares DCL. Use of processing fluid samples for longitudinal monitoring of PRRS virus in herds undergoing virus elimination. Porc Health Manag. (2019) 5:18. doi: 10.1186/s40813-019-0125-x
8. Official Journal of the European Union. COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 Laying down Minimum Standards for the Protection of Pigs. Available online at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0120 (Accessed June 4, 2025).
9. Tremblay R. Telemedicine?...Telehealth? …Maybe you should tell me more? Can Vet J. (2024) 65:1089–92.
10. Arruda PHE, Gauger P. Optimizing sample selection, collection, and submission to optimize diagnostiv value. In:Zimmerman J, Karriker LA, Ramirez A, Schwartz KJ, Stevenson GW, Zhang J, , editors. Diseases of Swine. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell (2019). p. 98–111. doi: 10.1002/9781119350927.ch7
11. Melini CM, Kikuti M, Bruner L, Allerson M, O'Brien K, Stahl C, et al. Assessment of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) farm surface contamination through environmental sampling. Porc Health Manag. (2024) 10:34. doi: 10.1186/s40813-024-00387-5
12. Sánchez-Vizcaíno JM, Mur L, Martínez-López B. African swine fever (ASF): five years around Europe. Vet Microbiol. (2013) 165:45–50. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2012.11.030
13. Jackson PG, Cockcroft PD, editors. Sampling and post-mortem examination of the pig. In: Handbook of Pig Medicine. Oxford: Elsevier (2007). p. 242–56. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-7020-2828-1.50020-7
14. Petrov A, Schotte U, Pietschmann J, Dräger C, Beer M, Anheyer-Behmenburg H, et al. Alternative sampling strategies for passive classical and African swine fever surveillance in wild boar. Vet Microbiol. (2014) 173:360–5. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2014.07.030
15. Calvert GD, Scott PJ, Sharpe DN. Percutaneous cardiac puncture in domestic pigs. Aust Veterinary J. (1977) 53:337–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.1977.tb00244.x
16. Sloan HJ, Wilgus HS. Heart probe—a method for obtaining blood samples from chickens. Poult Sci. (1930) 10:10–6. doi: 10.3382/ps.0100010
17. Kikuti M, Melini CM, Yue X, Culhane M, Corzo CA. Postmortem sampling in piglet populations: unveiling specimens accuracy for porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome detection. Pathogens. (2024) 13:649. doi: 10.3390/pathogens13080649
Keywords: alternative specimen, intracardiac blood, pathogen detection, post-mortem, porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRS)
Citation: Melini CM, Kikuti M, Yue X and Corzo CA (2026) Cardiac puncture blood collection as a practical and biosecure method for post-mortem pathogen detection in pigs. Front. Vet. Sci. 12:1741832. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2025.1741832
Received: 07 November 2025; Revised: 10 December 2025;
Accepted: 16 December 2025; Published: 12 January 2026.
Edited by:
Francisco Javier Salguero, UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), United KingdomReviewed by:
Francisco José Pallarés, University of Cordoba, SpainCopyright © 2026 Melini, Kikuti, Yue and Corzo. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Cesar A. Corzo, Y29yem9AdW1uLmVkdQ==