Noninfectious endophthalmitis following intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide: clinical case and literature review

Intravitreal versus Oral Steroids for Inflammation Control in Uveitic Patients Undergoing Cataract Surgery

BACKGROUND

This prospective experimental study was conducted on 40 eyes of 40 patients with complicated uveitic cataracts to compare a single intraoperative intravitreal injection of triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA) with oral steroids for inflammation control after cataract extraction.

METHODS

The IVTA group (19 eyes) received an intravitreal injection of 4 mg/0.1 ml triamcinolone acetonide intraoperatively, and the oral steroid group (19 eyes) received oral steroids peri-operatively. Two patients had to be excluded from the study because they underwent extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE), instead of phacoemulsification.

RESULTS

A statistically significant difference was observed in the anterior chamber cell and flare response between both groups initially, but by the last follow-up, this became insignificant. None of the patients in each group experienced a recurrence of uveitis nor developed cystoid macular edema. Five patients in the oral steroid group had IOP >21 mmHg post-operatively.

CONCLUSION

A single injection of 4 mg IVTA has similar efficacy to peri-operative oral steroid administration.

Infectious Endophthalmitis vs Noninfectious "Pseudohypopyon" After Intravitreal Triamcinolone Acetonide

Introduction: To describe a patient who presented with visual loss and an apparent hypopyon but none of the other symptoms or signs most common with infectious endophthalmitis. Methods: A case and its findings were analyzed. Results: A 73-year-old woman was treated with intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA) for cystoid macular edema. The eye had 12 previous injections without complication. After the 13th injection, the patient noted painless visual loss. An examination showed a visual acuity (VA) of finger counting and an apparent hypopyon, which shifted after a head-tilt test, suggesting a noninfectious "pseudohypopyon." Two days later, the VA worsened to hand motions and the hypopyon had increased in size. The eye was treated with a vitreous tap and injection with vancomycin and ceftazidime. The inflammation resolved, VA improved to 20/40, and cultures showed no growth. Conclusions: Distinguishing infectious endophthalmitis from noninfectious inflammation remains challenging. There is no definitive technique by which to distinguish between the 2 conditions; thus, clinicians must use their best judgment and follow the patient closely.

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.

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.

Treatment of Macular Edema in Vascular Retinal Diseases: A 2021 Update

Macular edema (ME) is associated with various conditions; however, the main causes of ME are retinal vein occlusion (RVO) and diabetes. Laser photocoagulation, formerly the gold standard for the treatment of ME, has been replaced by anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) intravitreal injections. Despite its efficiency, this treatment requires frequent injections to preserve the outcomes of anti-VEGF therapy, and as many patients do not sufficiently respond to the treatment, ME is typically a chronic condition that can lead to permanent visual impairment. Generalized recommendations for the treatment of ME are lacking, which highlights the importance of reviewing treatment approaches, including recent anti-VEGFs, intravitreal steroid implants, and subthreshold micropulse lasers. We reviewed relevant studies, emphasizing the articles published between 2019 and 2021 and using the following keywords: macular edema, diabetic macular edema, retinal vein occlusion, laser photocoagulation, anti-VEGF, and intravitreal injections. Our results revealed that a combination of different treatment methods may be beneficial in resistant cases. Additionally, artificial intelligence (AI) is likely to help select the best treatment option for patients in the near future.

Updates on the Current Treatments for Diabetic Retinopathy and Possibility of Future Oral Therapy

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a complication of diabetes and one of the leading causes of vision loss worldwide. Despite extensive efforts to reduce visual impairment, the prevalence of DR is still increasing. The initial pathophysiology of DR includes damage to vascular endothelial cells and loss of pericytes. Ensuing hypoxic responses trigger the expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and other pro-angiogenic factors. At present, the most effective treatment for DR and diabetic macular edema (DME) is the control of blood glucose levels. More advanced cases require laser, anti-VEGF therapy, steroid, and vitrectomy. Pan-retinal photocoagulation for non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) is well established and has demonstrated promising outcomes for preventing the progressive stage of DR. Furthermore, the efficacy of laser therapies such as grid and subthreshold diode laser micropulse photocoagulation (SDM) for DME has been reported. Vitrectomy has been performed for vitreous hemorrhage and tractional retinal detachment for patients with PDR. In addition, anti-VEGF treatment has been widely used for DME, and recently its potential to prevent the progression of PDR has been remarked. Even with these treatments, many patients with DR lose their vision and suffer from potential side effects. Thus, we need alternative treatments to address these limitations. In recent years, the relationship between DR, lipid metabolism, and inflammation has been featured. Research in diabetic animal models points to peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPARα) activation in cellular metabolism and inflammation by oral fenofibrate and/or pemafibrate as a promising target for DR. In this paper, we review the status of existing therapies, summarize PPARα activation therapies for DR, and discuss their potentials as promising DR treatments.