Bacterial Dispersion Associated With Various Patient Face Mask Designs During Simulated Intravitreal Injections

Intravitreal injection practice patterns among Chinese ophthalmologists

AIM

To describe the practice patterns of intravitreal injections (IVIs) among ophthalmologists in China.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional online survey. Ophthalmologists who had performed accumulated more than 100 injections were contacted by the Brightness Center, a hospital-based national network, to complete an anonymous, 24-question, internet-based survey. They were surveyed on practices in injection techniques, pre-, and post-injections procedures.

RESULTS

A total of 333 ophthalmologists from 28 provinces/municipalities/autonomous regions responded to the survey (50.68% response rate). The 91.29% of the respondents evaluated systemic risk factors by medical history, electrocardiogram (ECG) and blood test. All the respondents used pre-injection prophylactic antibiotics. Most checked intraocular pressure (IOP, 99.1%) and blood pressure (96.1%) before injections. A majority of the respondents performed injections in the operating room (98.8%), wore masks (99.7%), gloves (99.4%) and sterile surgical clothing (96.1%), performed topical anesthetics (97.9%), and applied povidone-iodine (95.8%) pre-injection. The 61.26% of the respondents dilated pupil. About half of the respondents (51.05%) performed bilateral injections in the same setting. Superior temporal quadrant (40.54%) was the most frequent site of injection. Around three quarters used 30-gauge needles. Most respondents (97.9%) measured the site of injection from limbus. More than half (53.45%) performed conjunctiva displacement prior to injection. The 32.43% of the respondents checked IOP post-injection and 87.99% physicians checked hand motion (HM) or counting fingers (CF) after injection, while 36.94% observed optic nerve perfusion. All participants used topical antibiotics post-injections. Most physicians (91.89%) reviewed patients on the following day.

CONCLUSION

This study provides a description of the real-world practice patterns in IVIs in China and offers critical information regarding education and training of ophthalmologists and amendment of local society guidelines.

Incidence of hordeola and chalazia during the COVID-19 pandemic: the role of mask wear

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Understanding the associations between mask wear and hordeola and chalazia formation are important for eyecare physicians as they may be overlooked as a direct cause. The literature on these possible relationships is limited.

BACKGROUND

The intention of this study was to determine if there was an increased incidence of internal/external hordeola and chalazia secondary to the implementation of mask wear due to the COVID-19 pandemic in an academic clinical setting.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of electronic medical records at the Illinois Eye Institute was conducted. Cases were categorised into two groups: pre-COVID/pre- mask wear (December 2018-February 2020) and during the pandemic/mask wear (May 2020-July 2022). Demographic data were also compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 163 cases of hordeola and chalazia were reported pre-COVID, with an increase to 225 during the pandemic/mask wear period. Due to the reduction in patient visits because of COVID restrictions, an incidence analysis was conducted to determine occurrence rates per 1000 visits. The pre-COVID period showed a total incidence rate of 3.06 cases per 1000 patients (hordeola 1.6/chalazia 1.57) while during the mask wearing period the incidence rate increased to 6.32 cases per 1000 patients (hordeola 2.5/chalazions 3.82). A total incidence rate ratio was calculated to be 2.1 (hordeola 1.6/chalazia 2.6) correlating to a greater chance of developing the conditions during mask wear.

CONCLUSIONS

An increase in the incidence of chalazia and hordeola were noted in the mask wear/pandemic group when compared to the pre-mask wear group. Increased mask wear may be a principal cause of hordeola and chalazia.

COVID-19 pandemic and impact of universal face mask wear on ocular surface health and risk of infection

Universal mask wear is an effective public health intervention to reduce SARS-Cov-2 transmission, especially in enclosed public spaces and healthcare environments. Concerns have been raised about possible transmission of the SARS-Cov-2 through ocular secretions, leading to enhanced protective measures during ophthalmic procedures. However, there is some evidence for air jets from the upper edge of the surgical mask to the ocular surface, especially when the mask is not well fit. Prolonged airflow towards the ocular surface during expiration may alter tear-film stability, leading to hyperosmolarity and ocular surface inflammation. This also raises the question of whether the ocular surface is contaminated with oral flora from airflow directed toward the eyes, thus increasing the risk of ocular infection. Herein we review the impact of patient face mask wear on the ocular surface, eyelids and risk of ocular infection, particularly during ocular surgery. There is some evidence for increased incidence of dry eye or eyelid disease during periods of mandatory face mask wear. While high daily exposure is consistent with a direct association, this should be mitigated by various cofounding factors which could also affect the ocular health during the COVID-19 pandemic. An increased risk of post-intravitreal injection endophthalmitis, possibly due to face mask wear by the patient, including culture-positive endophthalmitis, has been reported in one retrospective study. Several measures have been shown to prevent or limit the risk of developing dry eye disease or exacerbation, eyelid cyst, and ocular infection during intravitreal injections.

NO EFFECT OF REAL-WORLD UNIVERSAL FACE MASKING ON POST-INTRAVITREAL INJECTION ENDOPHTHALMITIS RATE AT A SINGLE TERTIARY ACADEMIC CENTER

PURPOSE

To determine whether universal masking during COVID-19 altered rate and outcomes of postinjection endophthalmitis.

METHODS

Retrospective, single-site, comparative, cohort study. Eyes diagnosed with endophthalmitis within 4 weeks of intravitreal injection at the University of Michigan from August 1, 2012, to November 15, 2022, were identified. Cases were considered "masking" between March 15, 2020, and November 15, 2022. Endophthalmitis rate, visual acuity, and microbial spectrum were investigated.

RESULTS

There were 20 postinjection endophthalmitis cases out of 72,194 injections (0.028%; one in 3,571 injections) premasking and 10 of 38,962 with universal masking (0.026%; one in 3,846 injections; odds ratio 0.9; 95% [confidence interval]: 0.4-2.0). Referral from the community was unchanged with 32 cases referred premasking (0.35 cases/month) and 10 cases with masking (0.31 cases/month). Presenting mean the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution visual acuity with masking of all postinjection endophthalmitis cases trended worse (2.35 ± 0.40) compared with premasking (2.09 ± 0.48; P = 0.05) with light perception visual acuity more common with masking (31.6% vs. 10.9%, P = 0.06). There was no delay in time from procedure to initial treatment ( P = 0.36), no difference in the rate of initial treatment with tap and inject (T/I), and similar positive-culture rates ( P = 0.77) between the cohorts. Visual acuity after 30 days of follow-up was clinically unchanged (∼20/500 vs. 20/400; P = 0.59).

CONCLUSION

Universal masking had no effect on postinjection endophthalmitis rate or on the rate of culture-positive cases. Although presenting visual acuity appeared worse with masking, this was not statistically significant, and current treatment paradigms resulted in similar visual outcomes.

Real or MADE-up: Investigating Mask-Associated Dry Eye (MADE) as an emerging syndrome

Mask-Associated Dry Eye (MADE) has emerged as a consequence of widespread face mask usage during the Covid-19 pandemic. This review critically assesses the available evidence. A comprehensive search on PUBMED and EMBASE was conducted to identify studies on MADE, which were then categorized based on their design. A total of 26 studies were critically appraised, with the majority exhibiting poor study design quality. Investigating the impact of mask use on ocular surface irritation faced challenges due to global mask mandates, pandemic-related behavioural changes, and a lack of validated methods to measure the response to mask wear. Among the 15 studies, 12 reported a statistically significant reduction in TBUT associated with mask wear; however, the median decrease of 1.3 s was considered clinically insignificant. Results from Schirmer's test in 8 studies varied, with 5 studies reporting a decrease, contradicting the hypothesis of misdirected airflow. Out of 7 studies on corneal and conjunctival staining, 6 indicated a worsening associated with mask wear. Five studies investigating OSDI scores reported an increase following mask wear, but 3 studies repeated the survey too soon. Limited evidence suggests that masks may cause mild ocular surface irritation, but the quality and certainty of this evidence remain low. Methodological limitations were prevalent across the majority of studies, and the observed changes were minimal. Therefore, it is unlikely that significant ocular surface pathology will develop in the majority of mask wearers. Currently, there is insufficient data to support the establishment of a new syndrome.

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.

Impact of Prefilled Syringes and Masking on Postintravitreal Injection Endophthalmitis

Purpose: To compare rates of endophthalmitis (1) following intravitreal injection of antivascular endothelial growth factor therapies with glass-vial preparation (GVP) vs prefilled syringes (PFS) and (2) before and after masking protocols were implemented. Methods: Medical records within a multicenter retina practice in Houston, Texas, from January 2015 to August 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. The primary outcome was rate of endophthalmitis after intravitreal injection. Results: A total of 307 349 injections were performed during the study period and 101 cases of endophthalmitis were identified (0.033%). PFS use was associated with a decreased risk of endophthalmitis (relative risk [RR], 0.320; 95% CI, 0.198-0.518, P < .001); 54 cases of endophthalmitis occurred in the GVP group of aflibercept and ranibizumab (0.052%) compared with 24 in the PFS group (0.017%). There was no difference in the endophthalmitis rates with or without universal masking (RR, 0.953; 95% CI 0.616-1.473, P = .91). Discussion: PFS use was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of endophthalmitis while the use of surgical face masks did not appear to significantly impact the rate of endophthalmitis.

Intravitreal Injections and Face Masks: Endophthalmitis Risk Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Purpose

To assess the added risk of acute endophthalmitis after intravitreal injections associated with the widespread use of face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

In this retrospective, single-center study, records of patients with acute endophthalmitis following intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) injections during the pre-COVID era-that is, March 1st , 2013 to October 31st , 2019 -and the COVID-19 era-that is, March 1st , 2020 to April 1st , 2021 -were reviewed and compared.

Results

A total of 28,085 IVB injections were performed during the pre-COVID era; nine eyes of nine patients developed acute post-IVB endophthalmitis in this era, giving an overall incidence of 0.032% (3.2 in 10,000 injections). In the COVID era, 10,717 IVB injections were performed; four eyes of four patients developed acute post-IVB endophthalmitis in this era, giving an overall incidence of 0.037% (3.7 in 10,000 injections). The incidences of post-IVB endophthalmitis during these two eras were not statistically significantly different (P = 0.779).

Conclusion

Face masking protocols seem unlikely to impose any additional risk of post-IVB endophthalmitis.

Infectious Keratitis After Keratorefractive Surgery: Update and Review of the Literature

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the clinical manifestations, microbiological profile, treatment, and prognosis of corneal infections after different keratorefractive surgery.

METHODS

To obtain relevant studies, English-language databases, including PubMed, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, and CLNAHL, were searched from January 1979 to March 2022. The fundamentals of the literature, clinical characteristics, pathogens, and treatments were retrieved for each included article.

RESULTS

Eighty-four studies involving 306 infectious eyes were included in this review. Risk factors of potential infection included a history of blepharitis, contact lens usage, and contaminated surgical instruments. The mean onset time was 22.9±38.7 days (range: 1 day to 3 years). The most common organism isolated from infectious keratitis after keratorefractive surgery were Staphylococcus aureus , followed by Mycobacterium and coagulase-negative Staphylococcus . Most of the infections after refractive procedures were sensitive to medical treatment alone, and the ultimate best-corrected visual acuity after medical treatment was as follows: 20/20 or better in 82 cases (37.0%), 20/40 or better in 170 cases (76.5%), and worse than 20/40 in 52 cases (23.5%). Surgical interventions including flap lift, flap amputation, ring removal, and keratoplasty were performed in 120 eyes (44.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Most infections after keratorefractive surgery occur within a week, whereas more than half of the cases after laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis happen after about a month. Gram-positive cocci and mycobacterium are the most common isolates. Infections after LASIK, intracorneal ring (ICR) implantation, and small incision lenticule extraction, which primarily occur between the cornea layers, require irrigation of the tunnels or pocket with antibiotics.

TFOS Lifestyle: Impact of contact lenses on the ocular surface

Several lifestyle choices made by contact lens wearers can have adverse consequences on ocular health. These include being non-adherent to contact lens care, sleeping in lenses, ill-advised purchasing options, not seeing an eyecare professional for regular aftercare visits, wearing lenses when feeling unwell, wearing lenses too soon after various forms of ophthalmic surgery, and wearing lenses when engaged in risky behaviors (e.g., when using tobacco, alcohol or recreational drugs). Those with a pre-existing compromised ocular surface may find that contact lens wear exacerbates ocular disease morbidity. Conversely, contact lenses may have various therapeutic benefits. The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic impinged upon the lifestyle of contact lens wearers, introducing challenges such as mask-associated dry eye, contact lens discomfort with increased use of digital devices, inadvertent exposure to hand sanitizers, and reduced use of lenses. Wearing contact lenses in challenging environments, such as in the presence of dust and noxious chemicals, or where there is the possibility of ocular trauma (e.g., sport or working with tools) can be problematic, although in some instances lenses can be protective. Contact lenses can be worn for sport, theatre, at high altitude, driving at night, in the military and in space, and special considerations are required when prescribing in such situations to ensure successful outcomes. A systematic review and meta-analysis, incorporated within the review, identified that the influence of lifestyle factors on soft contact lens dropout remains poorly understood, and is an area in need of further research. Overall, this report investigated lifestyle-related choices made by clinicians and contact lens wearers and discovered that when appropriate lifestyle choices are made, contact lens wear can enhance the quality of life of wearers.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Ophthalmology Practice: Changes and Controversies in Endophthalmitis Risk

This is an Editorial and does not have an abstract. Please download the PDF or view the article in HTML.

Effect of fenestrated sterile drape and face mask on bacterial dispersion toward the periocular area during intravitreal injection

This experimental crossover study was performed to investigate whether fenestrated surgical drapes (covering the nose and mouth but with an opening over the periorbital area) with or without patients' surgical face masks increase periorbital bacterial dispersion during simulated intravitreal injection conditions. Each of the 16 healthy volunteers performed 14 scenarios involving different mask and drape conditions in both silent and speaking situations. In each scenario, the subject lay down flat on the back with a blood agar plate being held at the inferior orbital rim perpendicular to the face to capture airflow from breathing/speaking. Another blood agar plate placed 50 cm away from the subject served as an experimental control. A total of 224 experiments were performed. Speaking situations significantly showed more colony forming units (CFUs) compared with their controls (P = 0.014). There were no significant differences in CFUs between wearing vs not wearing the masks (P = 0.887 for speaking and P = 0.219 for silent) and using vs not using the drapes (P = 0.941 for speaking and P = 0.687 for silent). Reusable and disposable drapes were also not significantly different (P = 1.00 for speaking and P = 0.625 for silent). Streptococcus spp., the oropharyngeal microbiota, were only cultivated from speaking scenarios. While refraining from speaking (for both practitioners and patients) is the mainstay of reducing bacterial dispersion and risks of post-injection endophthalmitis, the use of fenestrated surgical drapes or patients' face masks did not significantly affect the amount of bacterial dispersion toward the periorbital area.

Relationship between surgical field contamination by patient's exhaled air and the state of the drapes during eye surgery

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a dramatic increase in facemask use. Consequently, it has been reported that exhaled airflow toward the eyes can cause the dispersal of bacteria into the eyes, potentially increasing the incidence of postoperative endophthalmitis. In addition to wearing a facemask, gaps between the surgical drape and skin can also direct exhaled airflow toward the eyes. Here, we aimed to examine how the risk of contamination varies depending on the state of the drapes. We used a carbon dioxide imaging camera to visualize changes in exhaled airflow under different drape conditions and a particle counter to evaluate changes in the number of particles around the eye. The results revealed airflow present around the eye and a significant increase in the number of particles when the nasal side of the drape was detached from the skin. However, when a metal rod called "rihika" was used to create space above the body, the airflow and number of particles were significantly reduced. Thus, if drape coverage becomes incomplete during surgery, exhaled airflow toward the eye may contaminate the surgical field. On hanging up the drape, airflow can escape in the direction of the body, potentially preventing contamination.

Legal obligation in the general population: face mask influence on endophthalmitis after intravitreal injection

PURPOSE

To investigate whether compulsory face masking in public life changes the incidence or pattern of post-injection endophthalmitis (PIE).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All injections of bevacizumab, ranibizumab, aflibercept, dexamethasone or triamcinolone between 01/01/2015 and 12/31/2021 at the University Eye Clinic of Tuebingen were included in this retrospective analysis. The injection procedure itself was unchanged since 2015 and included the use of a sterile drape covering the head up to the shoulders which prevents airflow toward the eye. Furthermore, all staff wore a face mask and gloves at all times. The two study periods were defined by the introduction of a compulsory face masking rule in public life (01/01/2015 until 04/27/2020 vs. 04/28/2020 until 12/31/2021).

RESULTS

A total of 83,543 injections were performed in the tertiary eye clinic, associated with a total of 20 PIE (0.024%, 1/4177 injections). Of these, thirteen PIE were documented during the pre-pandemic period (0.021%, 1/4773 injections) and seven PIE during the pandemic period (0.033%, 1/3071 injections). No significant difference in PIE risk was observed (p = 0.49), and there was no case of oral flora associated PIE.

CONCLUSION

Although some potential confounders (wearing time, skin flora) could not be considered, there was no clear signal that the introduction of compulsory face masking in public life did alter the risk for PIE in our patient population. Three and six months after PIE, no difference in visual acuity was detectable between the two study periods.

The effect of COVID-19 pandemic and wearing face masks on ophthalmology practice: What is known so far? A narrative review

Face masks, along with other preventive measures, can help slow the spread of COVID-19. Despite the positive effect of the mask in combating the virus, it has some negative effects on the human body that must be followed up on and reduced. In this study, we discuss the impact of wearing face masks on the eye and the common issues associated with using them. The literature search was conducted using electronic databases such as PubMed and Google Scholar. Only articles published in English were included. A total of 39 relevant articles were deemed eligible. After the duplicate articles were removed, the titles and abstracts of 20 papers underwent full-text screening. The review comprised both prospective and retrospective investigations, case reports, and a series of reporting ocular symptoms following the use of face masks. The COVID-19 pandemic affected ophthalmology practices in managing patients. New factors must be considered, especially when dealing with anti-VEGF injections, such as the risk of endophthalmitis, tests and symptoms of patients with glaucoma, and the emerging symptoms associated with the COVID-19 vaccination. The use of face masks and breathing aids seemed to influence the tear film.

Influence of short-term face mask wear on semiautomatically measured tear film parameters in dry eye patients and healthy volunteers

Purpose

The use of face masks has been proposed to cause or exacerbate the symptoms of dry eye disease (DED), which has been widely discussed under the term mask-associated dry eye (MADE). However, no studies have systematically investigated tear film parameters during the use of different face masks. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to investigate clinically relevant parameters of the tear film before and during the short-time use of face masks in dry and normal eyes.

Methods

In a prospective study, the tear film parameters of 42 DED patients and 42 healthy volunteers were examined while wearing different types of face masks in a randomized order. This included measurements of non-invasive tear break-up time (NIBUT), lipid layer thickness, tear meniscus height, and bulbar redness after 30 min of wearing no mask, a surgical face mask or an FFP2/K95 mask. The equivalence of the means was assessed using the two one-sided t-test (TOST) method.

Results

In healthy volunteers’ lipid layer thickness, NIBUT and tear meniscus height were not significantly altered by 30 min of surgical or FFP2 mask wear (p > 0.016). The use of either type of mask was significantly associated with decreased bulbar redness (p < 0.001) in healthy eyes. In patients with DED, none of the tear film parameters or bulbar redness were significantly altered by 30 min of mask wear (p > 0.016).

Conclusions

Based on these results, the short-term wearing of face masks, regardless of type, did not produce a significant difference in tear film parameters of lipid layer thickness, NIBUT, and tear meniscus in healthy or dry eyes, while bulbar redness was reduced after mask wear only in healthy volunteers.

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.

Post-intravitreal injection endophthalmitis pattern during the COVID-19 pandemic with implementation of patients' masking

Purpose

To evaluate the role of patient facial masks on the occurrence of post-intravitreal injection (IVI) endophthalmitis in a real-word setting.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort, patients receiving IVIs between 20 February 2019 and 20 February 2021; a 12-month period before the official beginning of COVID-19 epidemic in Iran and a 12-month period thereafter were included. In the pre-COVID era, patients underwent IVI without a facial mask while in the COVID era patients wore an untaped facial mask. Physicians and staff had facial mask in both periods. IVIs were administered in a dedicated operating room without a strict no talk-policy. The main outcome measure was the rate of post-IVI endophthalmitis.

Results

A total number of 53,927 injections was performed during the study period: 34,277 in pre-COVID and 19,650 in COVID periods; with a 42.7% decrease in the number of injections. Endophthalmitis occurred in 7 eyes (0.020%) in pre-COVID and 7 eyes (0.036%) in COVID era (p = 0.40). In multivariate analysis, after adjustment for intercorrelations between the eyes and multiple injections in one patient, there was no statistically significant association between wearing facial masks by the patients and risk of endophthalmitis (relative risk = 1.47, 95% confidence interval of 0.97–2.22; p = 0.071).

Conclusion

Patients’ facial masking is not associated with an increased risk of post-injection endophthalmitis.

Impact of Taping The Upper Mask Edge On Ocular Surface Stability and Dry Eye Symptoms

PURPOSE

To evaluate the impact of taping the upper mask edge on ocular surface stability, dry eye symptomology, and tear osmolarity in N95 mask users.

DESIGN

Prospective interventional before-and-after study.

METHODS

Fifty eyes of 50 health care workers regularly using N95 masks were included. Preintervention, ocular surface parameters, subjective dry eye score, and visual acuity were assessed at the end of an 8-hour shift when the subjects used an N95 face mask without taping the upper edge. Next day, the upper edge of the N95 mask was taped to the nasal bridge in all subjects at the beginning of the 8-hour shift, and postintervention assessment was performed after the shift. The primary outcome measure was change in noninvasive tear break-up time (NIBUT). Secondary outcome measures were change in the symptom score, tear lipid layer thickness (LLT), tear break-up time (TBUT), Schirmer I test, tear meniscus height (TMH), osmolarity, and visual acuity.

RESULTS

Mean age of the cohort was 26.7 ± 3.67 years. Post-taping, significantly better ocular surface stability was observed in terms of NIBUT (P < .001), TBUT (P < .001), LLT (P < .001), TMH (P = .01), corneal staining score (P = .001), and tear osmolarity (P = .04). There was no significant change in visual acuity, Schirmer I, and Ocular Surface Disease Index score (P > .05). Symptom improvement was reported by 68% patients (SANDE version 2), which correlated well with change in NIBUT (r = 0.38; P = .005), TMH (r = 0.37; P = .007), LLT (r = 0.35; P = .01), and TBUT (r = 0.28; P = .04).

CONCLUSION

Taping of the upper mask edge resulted in significantly better ocular surface stability, which correlated well with decrease in dry eye symptoms.

Management Patterns and Outcomes for Intravitreal Injection–Related Endophthalmitis

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.

Complications of intravitreal injections: 2022

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review highlights the complications of both intravitreal injection procedure as well as different intravitreal medications including antivascular endothelial growth factors, antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, methotrexate, and steroids. Techniques for reducing rates of endophthalmitis will also be discussed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Intravitreal vancomycin can cause hemorrhagic occlusive retinal vasculitis resulting in severe vision loss. Intravitreal brolucizumab is associated with intraocular inflammation and retinal vasculitis resulting in significant vision loss. Face mask use by both patient and physician is not associated with increased risk of endophthalmitis and may decrease culture positive endophthalmitis.

SUMMARY

Intravitreal injections continue to be one of the most commonly performed procedures by ophthalmologists. Although the injections are generally well tolerated, sight-threatening complications can occur including endophthalmitis, retinal detachment, and/or retinal vasculitis. Adverse events associated with specific medications are outlined below. Several safety measures have been shown to reduce rates of endophthalmitis, the most concerning complication of this procedure.

Safety Measures for Maintaining Low Endophthalmitis Rate after Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Injection before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic

During the COVID-19 pandemic, intravitreal injections are performed with patients wearing masks. The risk of endophthalmitis after intravitreal injection is reported to increase due to an influx of exhaled air containing oral bacteria from the upper part of the mask onto the ocular surface. We retrospectively investigated the incidence of endophthalmitis when intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections were performed using the same infection control measures before and during the pandemic. Vitreoretinal specialists performed intravitreal injections of anti-VEGF agents in the outpatient room of a university hospital. Infection control measures before and during the pandemic included covering the patient’s eye with adhesive face drape and irrigating the ocular surface with 0.25% povidone-iodine before draping, and immediately before and after injection. Before the COVID-19 pandemic (February 2016 to December 2019), one case of endophthalmitis occurred among 31,173 injections performed (0.0032%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.000008–0.017872%). During the COVID-19 pandemic (January 2020 to August 2021), one case of endophthalmitis occurred among 14,725 injections performed (0.0068%; 95% CI, 0.000017–0.037832%). There was no significant difference between the two periods (Fisher’s exact test: p = 0.5387). Even during the COVID-19 pandemic, very low incidence of endophthalmitis after intravitreal injection can be maintained by implementing basic infection prophylactic measures, including face draping and 0.25% povidone-iodine irrigation, established before COVID-19 pandemic.

FACE MASK CONTAMINATION DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIA. A STUDY ON PATIENTS RECEIVING INTRAVITREAL INJECTIONS

PURPOSE

To investigate the bacterial growth in the surgical face masks used by patients who received intravitreal injections and study the effect of povidone-iodine on the periocular area (PA) of masks.

METHODS

Forty patients who attended for intravitreal injections were divided in those with less (<4 hours) and more (>4 hours) than 4 hours of mask use. Each group was divided depending on the application or not of povidone-iodine in the PA of the mask. Bacterial load was studied on PA and mouth area samples.

RESULTS

The bacterial load in the PA was higher in the >4 hours group compared with the <4 hours group (13.2 vs. 48.75 colony-forming units/μL; P = 0.03). The contamination in the PA significantly decreased after applying povidone-iodine in the >4 hours group (P = 0.01). The use or not of povidone-iodine was strongly correlated to a positive culture (OR = 9.0, P = 0.00. CI 1.63-49.44).

CONCLUSION

Surgical face masks worn for more than 4 hours present higher contamination in the PA than those with less use. Bacterial load in the PA is reduced with povidone-iodine on masks used for more than 4 hours. This contamination should be considered in the asepsis protocol of intravitreal injections.

Potential impact of oral flora dispersal on patients wearing face masks when undergoing ophthalmologic procedures

Objective

The purpose of this study is to investigate the amount of oral flora dispersion towards the ocular surface in relation to various face mask scenarios.

Methods and analysis

Thirty participants were recruited for this prospective cross-sectional study. Each participant was seated and instructed to hold a blood agar plate perpendicular to the bridge of their nose and facing downward. Participants then partook in three unique face mask scenarios: no face mask, surgical face mask and surgical face mask with tape securing the superior edge. During each scenario, participants were instructed to forcefully exhale for 5 s three times. The primary outcome measure was the number of colony-forming units (CFUs) grown on each face mask scenario-specific plate.

Results

Thirty participants were recruited for the study, and a total of 90 chocolate agar plates were successfully incubated. The proportion of detecting any CFU was 6.67% (95% CI: 0.818% to 22.1%) for no mask scenario, 0% (95% CI: 0% to 11.6%) for mask scenario and 3.33% (95% CI: 0.0844% to 17.2%) for mask-taped scenario. The mean differences in proportion of detecting any CFU were 3.33% (95% CI: 0% to 10%, p=0.309) for no mask versus mask taped, 3.35% (95% CI: 0% to 10%, p=0.307) for mask taped versus mask and 6.68% (95% CI: 0% to 16.7%, p=0.142) for no mask versus mask.

Conclusion

This study showed no difference in bacterial dispersion towards the ocular surface when comparing no face mask, a surgical face mask without tape or a surgical face mask with tape.

Impact of patient face mask use on endophthalmitis after intravitreal anti-VEGF injections

OBJECTIVE

To compare the incidence of endophthalmitis after intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections with and without patient face masking.

DESIGN

Two-centre retrospective cohort study PARTICIPANTS: Patients receiving a total of 28 501 injections (period 1 before masking: n = 13 863; period 2 after masking: n = 14 638) METHODS: Periods before and after implementation of patient masking were compared: period 1 (July-December 2019) and period 2 (July-December 2020). All patients requiring treatment for endophthalmitis following intravitreal anti-VEGF injections were reviewed. Endophthalmitis risks were compared. Statistical simulations were run to determine the number of injections or endophthalmitis cases required to detect a statistically significant difference between both periods.

RESULTS

Five patients (0.036%) had endophthalmitis in period 1 compared with 7 patients (0.048%) in period 2. Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, for risk of patient masking was 1.326, 0.421-4.179 (p = 0.63). Three patients (0.022%) in period 1 had culture-positive endophthalmitis compared with 2 patients (0.014%) in period 2. Risk of patient masking for culture-positive endophthalmitis was 0.631, 0.105-3.779 (p = 0.61). Assuming similar rates of endophthalmitis, 476,806 injections in both groups would be required to detect a significant difference. Alternatively, assuming that masking would increase endophthalmitis risk in period 2, a significant difference would require twice as many cases (n = 15, 0.102%) for a risk of 2.843, 1.033-7.825 (p = 0.043).

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of patient masking in clinical practice did not significantly alter the rate of endophthalmitis following intravitreal anti-VEGF injections.

The Influence of Universal Face Mask Use on Endophthalmitis Risk after Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Injections

Purpose

Routine use of face masks for patients and physicians during intravitreal anti–vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections has increased with the emergence of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. This study evaluates the impact of universal face mask use on rates and outcomes of post-injection endophthalmitis (PIE).

Design

Retrospective, multicenter, comparative cohort study.

Participants

Eyes receiving intravitreal anti-VEGF injections from October 1, 2019, to July 31, 2020, at 12 centers.

Methods

Cases were divided into a “no face mask” group if no face masks were worn by the physician or patient during intravitreal injections or a “universal face mask” group if face masks were worn by the physician, ancillary staff, and patient during intravitreal injections.

Main Outcome Measures

Rate of endophthalmitis, microbial spectrum, and visual acuity (VA).

Results

Of 505 968 intravitreal injections administered in 110 547 eyes, 85 of 294 514 (0.0289%; 1 in 3464 injections) cases of presumed endophthalmitis occurred in the “no face mask” group, and 45 of 211 454 (0.0213%; 1 in 4699) cases occurred in the “universal face mask” group (odds ratio [OR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51–1.18; P = 0.097). In the “no face mask” group, there were 27 cases (0.0092%; 1 in 10 908 injections) of culture-positive endophthalmitis compared with 9 cases (0.004%; 1 in 23 494) in the “universal face mask” group (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.22–0.99; P = 0.041). Three cases of oral flora–associated endophthalmitis occurred in the “no face mask” group (0.001%; 1 in 98 171 injections) compared with 1 (0.0005%; 1 in 211 454) in the “universal face mask” group (P = 0.645). Patients presented a mean (range) 4.9 (1–30) days after the causative injection, and mean logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) VA at endophthalmitis presentation was 2.04 (~20/2200) for “no face mask” group compared with 1.65 (~20/900) for the “universal face mask” group (P = 0.022), although no difference was observed 3 months after treatment (P = 0.764).

Conclusions

In a large, multicenter, retrospective study, physician and patient face mask use during intravitreal anti-VEGF injections did not alter the risk of presumed acute-onset bacterial endophthalmitis, but there was a reduced rate of culture-positive endophthalmitis. Three months after presentation, there was no difference in VA between the groups.