Allergy to povidone-iodine and cephalosporins: the clinical dilemma in ophthalmic use

Endophthalmitis after Anti-VEGF Intravitreal Injections with Aqueous Chlorhexidine versus Povidone-Iodine as Ocular Antiseptics

PURPOSE

To compare the rates and outcomes of endophthalmitis after intravitreal injections (IVIs) for patients pretreated with 5% povidone-iodine (PI) and 0.05% chlorhexidine (CHX).

DESIGN

A retrospective, single-center, comparative cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 8686 patients were included in the study, and a total of 67 695 anti-VEGF injections were performed from January 1, 2019, to November 30, 2021.

SETTING

A private retina practice of 13 retina specialists in Colorado.

METHODS

Using electronic health records, patients with preinjection preparation with PI or CHX were compiled retrospectively. Use of prefilled versus nonprefilled syringes was also tabulated. Patients with postinjection endophthalmitis (PIE) were identified among the 2 groups. Postinjection endophthalmitis is defined as an inflammation of the eye from infectious agents after an IVI. Logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) visual acuity (VA) was determined at the time of causative anti-VEGF injection, endophthalmitis presentation, and 3-month follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 67 695 IVIs were administered by 13 retina specialists during the study period. A total of 13 of 32 802 (0.0396%; 1 in 2523 injections) cases of presumed endophthalmitis occurred in the PI group, and 9 of 34 893 (0.0258%; 1 in 3877 injections) cases in the CHX group (P = 0.395). For the PI group, there were 2 culture-positive endophthalmitis cases (0.0061%, 1 in 16 401), compared with 2 cases in the CHX group (0.00573%, 1 in 17 447) (P = 1.000). No significant difference was observed in the average logMAR VA of PI and CHX at causative injection (P = 0.3851), endophthalmitis encounter (P = 0.7718), and 3-month follow-up (P = 0.6152). A significant reduction in presumed endophthalmitis (P = 0.0445) and culture-positive cases (P = 0.0130) was present for prefilled IVI compared with nonprefilled injections.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant difference in the rate of endophthalmitis or visual outcomes were found in the CHX group compared with the PI group. Prefilled syringes were associated with a significant reduction in endophthalmitis rate. Further multicenter studies are needed to validate the efficacy and safety of CHX compared with PI for IVI preparation.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

Comparison of Endophthalmitis Rates after Alcohol-Based Chlorhexidine and Povidone-Iodine Antisepsis for Intravitreal Injections

OBJECTIVE

Intravitreal injections (IVIs) are the most frequently performed intraocular procedure in Canada. Povidone-iodine (PI) is the current gold standard for antisepsis for IVI and is widely used; chlorhexidine (CH) is a possible alternative antiseptic agent. This study aims to compare rates of endophthalmitis after IVI with 0.05% chlorhexidine with a 4% alcohol base antisepsis to rates of endophthalmitis after IVI with 10% PI antisepsis.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SUBJECTS

Eyes that received IVI between May 2019 and October 2022 at a group retina practice in Edmonton, Canada.

METHODS

Eyes at a single center received focal conjunctival application of either 10% PI antisepsis or 0.05% CH in 4% alcohol antisepsis for 30 seconds before each IVI.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Rates of endophthalmitis between the PI and CH groups.

RESULTS

A total of 170 952 IVIs were performed during the study period. A total of 31 135 were performed using CH prophylaxis compared with 139 817 with PI prophylaxis. Among all IVIs there were 49 total cases of endophthalmitis, 29 in the PI group (0.021%) and 20 in the CH group (0.064%). There was a statistically significant difference in the rates of endophthalmitis between the 2 groups (P < 0.001). The odds ratio for developing endophthalmitis with CH antisepsis was 3.1 (95% confidence interval, 1.9-5.2) compared with PI antisepsis. There were increased odds of developing endophthalmitis with aflibercept injection compared with bevacizumab (odds ratio, 3.48; 95% confidence interval, 2.09-7.24).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a statistically significant difference in rates of endophthalmitis between alcohol-based CH and PI antisepsis for IVI in our patient population utilizing the methods discussed. In our center, alcohol-based CH is now considered a second-line antiseptic agent. Further studies are warranted to further assess the endophthalmitis rate utilizing these 2 antiseptic agents.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Preventive factors, diagnosis, and management of injection-related endophthalmitis: a literature review

BACKGROUND

Intravitreal medication injections represent the gold standard treatment for a variety of potentially blinding chorioretinal vascular diseases. Despite their excellent safety profile, they are associated with the feared complication of injection-related endophthalmitis (IRE). Though the overall incidence of IRE is low, due to the ever-increasing number of injections being performed, it is a complication that all retina specialists are likely to encounter. This article reviews various factors that could potentially influence the risk of IRE and discusses evidence-based strategies for management.

METHOD

PubMed was searched for keywords "intravitreal injection" and "endophthalmitis" from the period of 1995-2021. Relevant articles were reviewed and selected articles were analyzed with respect to the incidence, potential preventive factors, clinical presentation, microbial profile, management, and outcomes for IRE.

RESULTS

There is strong consensus supporting the use of povidone iodine topical antiseptic, eyelid retraction away from the injection site, and avoiding treatment of eyes with active surface or eyelid disease, but there is less agreement on the use of face masks versus "no-talking" policies and optimal anesthetic technique. Current evidence comparing tap and inject or early vitrectomy for treatment of IRE is inadequate to determine an optimal treatment strategy.

CONCLUSION

Intravitreal injections are sight saving, but even using established prophylactic measures there remains a small but real risk of infectious injection-related complications. Further investigations comparing tap and inject versus vitrectomy may help to establish optimal treatment, although the rarity of IRE makes designing adequately powered prospective trials a difficult task.

The effect of punctal plugs in reducing ocular surface irritation after povidone-iodine preparation of intravitreal injection-a randomized trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate the utility of dissolvable collagen punctal plugs (CPP) in reducing ocular surface irritation after intravitreal injections (IVI).

METHODS

Sixty-four subjects in the experimental group received CPP after intravitreal injections. Sixty-two controls did not receive CPP. Reductions in the Ocular Surface Disease Index© (OSDI) and Standardized Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness II (SPEED II) scores were analysed.

RESULTS

Dry eye symptoms, as measured by reductions from the pre- to post-injection OSDI (p = 0.137) and SPEED II (p = 0.381) scores, did not significantly differ between the two groups. In sub-group analysis, patients with objective findings of dry eyes had significant improvement in their symptoms (p = 0.046) with CPP. The effect of CPP is not significant in those without dry eyes (p = 0.27).

CONCLUSION

CPPs were not effective in reducing post-injection ocular irritation in patients with no or only mild dry eye symptoms. CPPs improved patients' post-injection comfort levels in those who had moderate-to-severe symptoms and objective findings of dry eye. Though costly CPP could be considered in selective patients. A standardized eye rinse could be a simple, efficacious, and cost-effective way to reduce post-injection ocular irritation; however, more studies are needed.

Short-term Safety Evaluation of Resident-performed Intravitreal Injection

Purpose: This study evaluated the short-term safety of resident-performed intravitreal injections.Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 503 patients (503 eyes) treated for the first time in our hospital from January 2018 to October 2020 via intravitreal bevacizumab, ranibizumab, aflibercept, or triamcinolone acetonide injections by residents or retina specialists. In terms of short-term ophthalmic complications, patients were followed-up 1 day, 1 week, and 1 month after injection.Results: A total of 503 eyes of 503 patients were included. Intravitreal injections were given to 211 and 292 eyes by residents (the resident group) and retina specialists (the retina specialist group), respectively. There were no between-group differences in baseline characteristics except in terms of the indications for injection. Intraocular pressure elevation >5 mmHg occurred in two eyes (0.95%) in the resident group and five (1.71%) in the retina specialist group, but the difference was not statistically significant. Subconjunctival hemorrhage occurred in 29 eyes (13.74%) of the resident group and 32 eyes (10.96%) of the retina specialist group; again, the difference was not statistically significant. No case of noninfectious endophthalmitis occurred in the resident group but two (0.68%) cases occurred in the retina specialist group; again, the difference was not significant. There were two (0.95%) cases of infectious endophthalmitis in the resident group and one (0.34%) case in the retina specialist group; again, the difference was not significant. No corneal erosion, traumatic lens damage, vitreous hemorrhage, or retinal tearing or detachment were noted in either group.Conclusions: Resident-performed intravitreal injections appear to be safe.

Post-injection endophthalmitis rates with reduced povidone-iodine prophylaxis in patients with self-reported iodine sensitivity

BACKGROUND

Our objectives were (1) to report the post-injection endophthalmitis rate over 18 months, and (2) to determine any difference in the incidence of endophthalmitis in patients treated with reduced or no 5% povidone-iodine (PI) due to self-reported PI sensitivity.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients who received intravitreal injections (IVIs) from January 1st, 2018 to June 26th, 2019. Information on patients' age, gender visual acuities, the number of injections, drug administered, self-reported iodine sensitivity and injection protocols were obtained from electronic and paper records. For endophthalmitis cases, vitreous culture results and treatment were also noted. Patients were divided into three cohorts based on the injection protocol used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

During the study period 22,046 IVIs were administered to 3332 eyes of 2709 patients. Intolerance to PI was reported by 2.4% of patients. The incidence of endophthalmitis was 0.02% (4/21,185) with the standard 5% PI protocol, 0.78% (6/769) with a reduced PI protocol involving fewer drops of 5% PI and chlorohexidine 0.05% for periorbital skin cleansing, and 1.09% (1/92) without any PI use. Receiving the standard PI protocol was associated with significantly lower rates of endophthalmitis compared to both the reduced PI and no PI protocols (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who opt for less or no PI use are likely at significantly increased risk of developing post-IVI endophthalmitis. It is imperative to educate, counsel and consent these patients accordingly while exploring alternative antiseptic solutions.

A case of hypersensitivity developing against trace element solution in total parenteral nutrition, proved by skin prick test

Total parenteral nutrition (TPN) is a commonly used treatment method for patients whose oral intake is insufficient or who cannot use the gastrointestinal system. In the literature hypersensitivity reactions to contents of PN and fats are very rare. But these reactions can be seen in a wide spectrum from minor reactions such as pruritus to life-threating reactions such as anaphylaxis. In this case, a hypersensitivity reaction case will be presented against the trace element product in PN. As far as we know, there are no other cases in the literature that are definitely associated with trace element solution.

Aqueous Chlorhexidine Compared with Povidone-Iodine as Ocular Antisepsis before Intravitreal Injection: A Randomized Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

Topical povidone-iodine (PI) is widely used as an ocular surface antiseptic for intravitreal injections (IVIs). Although PI is generally well tolerated, it can be associated with significant ocular irritation. Aqueous chlorhexidine (AqCHX) has been described as a possibly better tolerated antimicrobial for ophthalmic procedures. We compared patient pain scores, ocular surface characteristics, and antimicrobial efficacy between PI 5% and AqCHX 0.1% during IVIs.

DESIGN

Prospective single-center, randomized clinical trial.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients receiving same-day bilateral intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections.

METHODS

Each patient had 1 eye randomized to PI or AqCHX, and the second eye received the other agent. Both eyes received topical proparacaine 0.5%.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

After IVIs, participants rated their pain (Wong-Baker, scale 0-10) for each eye 1 minute after PI or AqCHX instillation and 1 day after the procedure. Each eye was assessed using a standardized quantitative grading system of corneal epitheliopathy (ocular staining score). Microbial swab cultures of the conjunctiva both before instillation of topical antisepsis and 10 minutes after IVIs were given.

RESULTS

A total of 100 eyes of 50 patients were included. The mean patient age was 68 years (range, 39-92), and 30 of 50 (60%) were male. Compared with AqCHX, eyes receiving PI had a greater mean pain score immediately after injection (1.44 vs. 0.44, P < 0.001) but not on postprocedure day 1 (1.04 vs. 0.48, P = 0.06). Eyes that received PI had a higher ocular staining score indicating worse corneal epitheliopathy (4.22 vs. 3.10, P < 0.001). There was no difference in rates of positive microbial cultures between groups. There was no difference in rates of adverse events between groups (P = 0.99), and no cases of endophthalmitis occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Povidone-iodine demonstrated greater ocular surface discomfort and corneal epitheliopathy compared with AqCHX during same-day bilateral IVIs. The 2 agents otherwise demonstrated no difference in positive microbial cultures or adverse events. Aqueous chlorhexidine may be a better tolerated alternative to PI for antimicrobial prophylaxis during IVIs for some patients.

DILUTE POVIDONE-IODINE PROPHYLAXIS MAINTAINS SAFETY WHILE IMPROVING PATIENT COMFORT AFTER INTRAVITREAL INJECTIONS

PURPOSE

To report the rates of postintravitreal injection (IVT) endophthalmitis with topical conjunctival application of various concentrations of povidone-iodine (PI), including no PI.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of patients receiving IVTs performed in a single practice between January 2011 and June 2016. Concentration of PI for all injections was recorded and cases of endophthalmitis identified and reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 35,060 IVTs in 1854 patients were included from the 5.5-year period. 29,281 injections were performed with standard 5% PI, 5,460 injections with diluted PI (3,731 with 2.5%, 1,673 with 1.25%, 56 with 0.625%), and 319 IVTs with no PI. Incidence of patient-reported PI sensitivity occurred in 15.9% of patients. Fourteen cases of endophthalmitis were identified: 12 in eyes that received 5% PI, one in an eye that received 1.25% PI, and one in an eye receiving no PI. The incidence of endophthalmitis was 0.04% for 5% PI, 0.02% for dilute PI, and 0.31% for no PI prophylaxis. All cases underwent prompt vitrectomy and had positive cultures for coagulase-negative Staphylococcus.

CONCLUSION

Application of dilute PI solution to the conjunctiva at the time of IVT is an effective alternative to 5% PI for endophthalmitis prophylaxis in betadine-sensitive patients.

A Prospective, Randomized Trial of Povidone-Iodine 0.6% and Dexamethasone 0.1% Ophthalmic Suspension for Acute Bacterial Conjunctivitis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a topical ophthalmic suspension combination of povidone-iodine 0.6% (PVP-I) and dexamethasone 0.1% (DEX) for infectious and inflammatory components of bacterial conjunctivitis.

DESIGN

Randomized, double-masked, multicenter, phase 3 clinical trial.

METHODS

Subjects of all ages (those <3 months had to be full-term) with a diagnosis of bacterial conjunctivitis were randomized 3:1:3 to either PVP-I/DEX, PVP-I alone, or placebo. The primary endpoint was clinical resolution in the study eye, and the key secondary efficacy endpoint was bacterial eradication, both at the day 5 visit. Adverse events (AEs) were documented at all visits.

RESULTS

Overall, 753 subjects were randomized (intent-to-treat [ITT] population; PVP-I/DEX [n = 324]; PVP-I [n = 108]; placebo [n = 321]); mean and standard deviation (SD) age was 44.3 (22.9) years, and most were female (61.2%) and white (78.1%). In all treatment groups, mean treatment compliance was >98%. The modified ITT population for the efficacy analysis comprised 526 subjects. In the study eye at the day 5 visit, clinical resolution was achieved by 50.5% (111/220) subjects in the PVP-I/DEX group vs 42.8% (95/222) in the placebo group (P = .127), and bacterial eradication was achieved by 43.3% (94/217) and 46.8% (102/218), respectively (P = .500). Treatment-emergent AEs were experienced by 32.8% (106/323), 39.8% (43/108), and 19.0% (61/321) of subjects in the safety population treated with PVP-I/DEX, PVP-I, and placebo, respectively (most mild in severity).

CONCLUSION

In this study, PVP-I/DEX did not demonstrate additional benefit in clinical efficacy compared with placebo in subjects with bacterial conjunctivitis.

Bacterial Detection Rate and Surgical Outcome in Povidone-Iodine Irrigation After Nasolacrimal Duct Intubation

Purpose

In various ophthalmic surgical procedures, 0.25% povidone-iodine (PI) solution is used to prevent infections. This study examined the bacterial colonisation before and after endoscopic nasolacrimal duct intubation irrigated with PI solution and investigated the relationship between bacterial detection and surgical failure.

Methods

A retrospective study at Saitama Medical University Hospital. We enrolled 113 patients (33 men, 80 women) who underwent lacrimal intubation surgery between April 2016 and December 2018. Preoperatively, the lacrimal pathways were washed with normal saline solution, which was subsequently cultured. The sites of obstruction in the lacrimal pathway were endoscopically determined, perforated, and intubated. The tubes were afterward either irrigated with 0.25% PI or normal saline every 2 weeks. After 8 weeks, a piece of the removed lacrimal tube was cultured. We characterized the pre- and postoperative bacterial cultures.

Results

We enrolled 54 and 52 patients in PI and saline groups (mean age: 69.1±9.2 and 73.2±7.2 years), respectively. In the PI group, Staphylococcus epidermidis was less frequently detected postoperatively than preoperatively. S. oralis and Candida parapsilosis were identified more often postoperatively (P=0.02, P=0.01, respectively). The PI group had significantly lower bacterial detection rate than the saline group (P=0.01). However, the surgical failure rates did not differ between groups. In surgical failure patients, the postoperative rate of Pseudomonas aeruginosa was very high (75%).

Conclusion

PI reduces the bacterial detection rate but does not improve the surgical success rate. P. aeruginosa is associated with an increased risk of surgical failure.

Prophylaxis measures for postinjection endophthalmitis

Intravitreal injections have become the most commonly performed ophthalmic procedure, transforming modern retina practice. Postinjection endophthalmitis, while rare, remains the most feared potential complication. Prophylaxis measures including topical antisepsis, hand hygiene, gloves, masks, and drapes have all been proposed to help prevent postinjection endophthalmitis; however, there remains significant variation in protocol, given the lack of agreement among retina specialists on which steps are crucial to prevent endophthalmitis. With millions of injections performed annually, collating data have helped us better understand risk factors for endophthalmitis after intravitreal injection. We summarize the consensus guidelines for intravitreal injection technique and comprehensively review the literature on prevention of postinjection endophthalmitis.

["Iodine allergy" : A medical myth with risks for the ophthalmological patient]

BACKGROUND

Preoperative disinfection with povidone-iodine results in a significant reduction of the risk for postoperative endophthalmitis and secondary irreversible vision loss in intraocular surgeries and intravitreal injections. Nevertheless, this important measure is often omitted if so-called "iodine allergy" is suspected. We analyze the physiological and allergological basis for the construct of "iodine allergy".

METHODS

This article is based on a selective literature review using the search term "allergy" in combination with "iodine", "povidone", "indocyanine green", or "seafood".

RESULTS

Iodine is a chemical element and an essential component of the human body. Scientific proof for the existence of an antibody-mediated allergic reaction (type I reaction) and in particular an immunoglobulin (Ig) E‑mediated anaphylaxis against iodine is lacking. Chemical irritations and contact allergies (type IV reaction) induced by iodine-containing disinfectants are not antibody-mediated and do not cause anaphylaxis (type I reaction). The uncommon antibody-mediated allergies against iodine-containing disinfectants, fluorescent dyes, radiocontrast media, or seafood are not directed against the contained iodine itself but against other components of the respective formulation. Thus, allergic cross-reactivities between these different substance groups are not to be expected.

CONCLUSION

So-called "iodine allergy" is a medical myth lacking a scientific basis and should not result in increased patient risks due to omitted preoperative disinfection.

Aqueous Chlorhexidine for Intravitreal Injection Antisepsis: A Case Series and Review of the Literature

PURPOSE

To determine the incidence of endophthalmitis in a large clinical series using aqueous chlorhexidine for antisepsis before intravitreal injection and to review the ophthalmic literature regarding chlorhexidine efficacy and safety.

DESIGN

Multicenter retrospective case series.

PARTICIPANTS

All patients receiving intravitreal injections from 7 retinal specialists.

METHODS

An audit of intravitreal injections performed by retinal specialists who exclusively used aqueous chlorhexidine 0.05% or 0.1% for prophylaxis of infective endophthalmitis was undertaken. The incidence of endophthalmitis was determined from August 1, 2011, to February 28, 2015. A literature review was performed to critically appraise the ocular safety and efficacy of aqueous chlorhexidine.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Incidence of endophthalmitis after intravitreal injections.

RESULTS

A total of 40 535 intravitreal injections were performed by 7 retinal specialists across 3 centers. Chlorhexidine was well tolerated, and only 1 patient with a suspected allergic reaction was noted. Three cases of endophthalmitis were identified with 1 culture-positive case. The 0.0074% (1 in 13 512) per-injection rate of endophthalmitis in this series compares favorably with previous series in which povidone-iodine has been used.

CONCLUSIONS

Aqueous chlorhexidine was associated with a low rate of postinjection endophthalmitis and was well tolerated by patients.

Endophthalmitis After Intravitreal Injections in Patients With Self-reported Iodine Allergy

PURPOSE

To present cases of endophthalmitis following intravitreal injections where povidone-iodine (PI) was not used as part of the surgical preparation.

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

METHODS

All cases of presumed injection-related endophthalmitis presenting to the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary between June 2008 and November 2014 and Dean McGee Eye Institute between January 2010 and January 2015 were identified. Patients who did not receive PI preparation owing to documented self-reported allergy to iodine, iodine-containing contrast material, or shellfish were identified and their injection histories and clinical courses reviewed.

RESULTS

The combined rate of postinjection endophthalmitis at these 2 centers was 0.019%. Among 42 patients with postinjection endophthalmitis, 5 (11.9%) did not receive PI prophylaxis. The mean number of intravitreal injections without PI before the development of endophthalmitis was 10.6 with a 9.4% rate of endophthalmitis (5 cases per 53 injections). All patients underwent tap-and-inject procedures with vancomycin 1 mg and ceftazidime 2 mg. Two patients did not receive PI at the time of tap and inject; 1 of these patients required subsequent pars plana vitrectomy for worsening clinical course. Cultures were positive in 4 of 5 cases; all positive cultures grew coagulase-negative Staphylococcus. All patients who received subsequent intravitreal injections received PI prophylaxis without allergic reactions, thus demonstrating a lack of true PI allergy.

CONCLUSIONS

Avoiding PI owing to self-reported iodine "allergy" risks substantial ocular morbidity. Allergy testing can be pursued per patient request or in rare cases of suspected true PI allergy; however, in cases where delayed treatment would adversely affect visual outcome, the clinician should feel confident that minimal allergic risk exists.

Endophthalmitis following intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injection: a comprehensive review

The purpose of this review is to report and summarize previously reported studies and assess many of the individual steps of the intravitreal injection procedure's possible effect on the prevention of endophthalmitis. The pooled endophthalmitis rate from 20 large retrospective case series of anti-VEGF injections was 144/510,396 (0.028%; 1/3,544). Injections may be performed in an office-based location or in an operating room (OR) and low rates of endophthalmitis can be achieved in either location with careful attention to asepsis. Pre- or post-injection topical antibiotics have not been shown to be effective, and could select for more virulent microorganisms. Povidone-iodine prior to injection is accepted as the gold-standard antiseptic agent, but aqueous chlorhexidine may be an alternative. Antisepsis before and after gel or subconjunctival anesthetic is suggested. The preponderance of Streptococcal infections after intravitreal injection is discussed, including the possible role of aerosolization, which can be minimized by using face masks or maintaining silence. As with other invasive procedures in medicine, the use of sterile gloves, following adequate hand antisepsis, may be considered. Control of the eyelashes and lid margin is required to avoid contamination of the needle, but this can be achieved with or without a speculum. Techniques to minimize vitreous reflux have not been shown to reduce the risk of endophthalmitis. Same day bilateral injections should be performed as two separate procedures, preferably using drug from different lots, especially when using compounded drugs.

Intravitreal injection technique and monitoring: updated guidelines of an expert panel

PURPOSE

To review evidence and provide updated guidelines on intravitreal (IVT) injection technique and monitoring.

METHODS

A review of the published literature on IVT injection from 2004 to 2014 formed the basis for round table deliberations by an expert panel of ophthalmologists.

RESULTS

The dramatic increase in the number of IVT injections has been accompanied by a comparable increase in evidence surrounding IVT practice patterns and techniques. The expert panel identified a number of areas that have evolved since publication of the original IVT injection guidelines in 2004, the most notable of which were a lack of evidence to support the routine use of pre-, peri-, and postinjection antibiotics to reduce the risk of endophthalmitis, and the role of aerosolized droplets containing oral contaminants from the patient and/or providers as a potential source of infection. The panel emphasized the continued importance of applying povidone-iodine to and avoiding eyelid contact with the intended injection site and needle.

CONCLUSION

Updated guidelines on IVT injection technique and monitoring are proposed based on a review of published literature and expert panel deliberations.

Endophthalmitis following pars plana vitrectomy: a literature review of incidence, causative organisms, and treatment outcomes

Endophthalmitis following pars plana vitrectomy is a very uncommon cause of endophthalmitis. Cases reported over the last decade show a decrease in incidence over time. To optimize visual outcome, early diagnosis and treatment are essential. In this review we report a summary of the incidence of endophthalmitis following vitrectomy, various risk factors for their occurrence, the microbiological profile and the visual outcomes post treatment.