Management Patterns and Outcomes for Intravitreal Injection-Related Endophthalmitis
- PMID: 37008544
- PMCID: PMC9976125
- DOI: 10.1177/24741264211028435
Management Patterns and Outcomes for Intravitreal Injection-Related Endophthalmitis
Abstract
Purpose: This work describes the clinical management and outcomes in cases of presumed infectious endophthalmitis following intravitreal injection at a tertiary academic medical center.
Methods: A retrospective review took place of eyes that presented to the Duke Eye Center over a 9-year period and were diagnosed with intravitreal injection-related endophthalmitis. Clinical presentation, management, microbiologic yield, visual outcomes, and complications were abstracted from medical records.
Results: Of 23 eyes diagnosed with postinjection endophthalmitis, 52.2% underwent anterior chamber tap (33.3% of which first underwent dry needle vitreous tap), 47.8% underwent needle vitreous tap, 17.4% underwent neither, and none underwent pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) for initial management. Subsequent PPV was performed in 6 eyes (26.1%). Mean visual acuity (VA) improved by 50 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters at 6 months. Eyes that underwent initial anterior chamber tap had worse presenting VA than those that did not (P = .01). Eyes undergoing subsequent PPV had worse VA at presentation (P = .02) and at 6 months (P < .001). Eyes presenting with VA of hand motion (20/8000) or worse were more likely to undergo subsequent PPV (P = .02).
Conclusions: Eyes with intravitreal injection-related endophthalmitis presenting with VA of hand motion or worse were more likely to undergo subsequent PPV. Future studies with larger cohorts may reveal whether earlier vitrectomy should be considered in these patients.
Keywords: anti-VEGF injection; endophthalmitis; intravitreal injection; intravitreal injection–related endophthalmitis; pars plana vitrectomy.
© The Author(s) 2021.
Conflict of interest statement
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: S.S., C.B.R., and H.L.F. have nothing to disclose; S.F. receives patent royalties from Alcon. None of the authors have a proprietary interest in the material discussed in this study.
References
-
- Lemley CA, Han DP. Endophthalmitis: a review of current evaluation and management. Retina. 2007;27(6):662–680. doi:10.1097/IAE.0b013e3180323f96 - PubMed
-
- Aiello LP, Brucker AJ, Chang S, et al. Evolving guidelines for intravitreous injections. Retina. 2004;24(5 suppl):S3–S19. doi:10.1097/00006982-200410001-00002 - PubMed
-
- Fileta JB, Scott IU, Flynn HW, Jr. Meta-analysis of infectious endophthalmitis after intravitreal injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2014;45(2):143–149. doi:10.3928/23258160-20140306-08 - PubMed
-
- Reibaldi M, Avitabile T, Bandello F, et al. The effectiveness of 0.6% povidone iodine eye drops in reducing the conjunctival bacterial load and needle contamination in patients undergoing anti-VEGF intravitreal injection: a prospective, randomized study. J Clin Med. 2019;8(7):1031. doi:10.3390/jcm8071031 - PMC - PubMed
-
- Rayess N, Rahimy E, Shah CP, et al. Incidence and clinical features of post-injection endophthalmitis according to diagnosis. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016;100(8):1058–1061. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2015-307707 - PubMed