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

Long-Term Stability, Sterility, And Cost-Effectiveness of 0.05% Chlorhexidine Gluconate as Antisepsis for Intravitreal Injection

Purpose: Commercially available chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) has a beyond-use date of 24 h. This study evaluated the stability and sterility of 0.05% CHG for 30 days after opening and compared its cost to povidone iodine (PI) for intravitreal injection antisepsis. Methods: 0.05% CHG was aliquoted into 1-mL syringes and stored at room temperature or refrigerated. Turbidity, pH, high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), and sterility testing were performed. A cost analysis was conducted. Results: 0.05% CHG remained stable for at least 30 days. All samples had measured turbidity <0.5 nephelometric turbidity units. The pH of all samples remained between 5.0 and 7.0. HPLC demonstrated CHG concentration at day 30 relative to day 0 of 98.52% ± 4.16% at room temperature and 99.99% ± 3.38% at 2°C -6°C. The cost per week to perform 150 injections using 0.05% CHG was $463.25 when opening a new bottle daily compared with $16.73 for 5% PI. This cost decreased to $23.16 when utilizing a bottle of CHG for 30 days. Conclusion: 0.05% CHG remains stable and sterile for at least 30 days after opening. The ability to use CHG for at least 30 days after its opening significantly decreases its utilization expense.

Endophthalmitis: a bibliometric study and visualization analysis from 1993 to 2023

Aims

This study is designed to generalize and depict the research hotspots of endophthalmitis through bibliometric methods and software and analyze the evolutive tendency of the work on this severe disease over the past 30 years.

Methods

This study employed a rigorous bibliometric approach. We identified all endophthalmitis-related literature by conducting a comprehensive search of the Science Citation Index Expanded database under the Web of Science Core Collection. The data was then analyzed and visualized using CiteSpace and VOSviewer, two widely recognized software tools in the field of bibliometrics. CiteSpace was used to analyze the country distributions, dual map overlay of journals, keyword bursts, and co-cited references. VOSviewer was employed to describe the authors and co-cited authors, the journals, the co-cited journals, and the keywords co-occurrence network. This robust methodology ensures the reliability and validity of the study's findings.

Results

A total of 2960 publications, including 2695 articles and 265 reviews, were included in this bibliometric study. There has been no shortage of endophthalmitis-related publications since 1993, with an apparent upward trend during recent years. Possible correlations with the COVID-19 pandemic are also analyzed. These studies were finished by 11,048 authors from 75 countries worldwide, with the United States in the lead. In the keyword co-occurrence network, except for the endophthalmitis term, cataract surgery becomes the keyword with the highest frequency. Different categories of endophthalmitis, including postoperative, post-injection, post-traumatic, and endogenous endophthalmitis, and antibacterial and anti-inflammatory therapies of infectious endophthalmitis, are discussed by categories. From the perspective of the timeline, postoperative and post-injection endophthalmitis were the dominant forms before and after the year 2000, respectively. Co-citation analyses reveal that the Endophthalmitis Vitrectomy Study (EVS) conducted in 1995 provides pivotal guidance for later research. Diverse pathogenic bacteria (e.g., Coagulase-negative Staphylococci, Propionibacterium acnes, Viridians Streptococci, and Bacillus cereus) or fungi (e.g., Candida, Aspergillus, and Fusarium) contribute to varying treatment principles and clinical prognosis, which should be taken seriously. In addition, intravitreal and intracameral antibiotics are the mainstay for treating and preventing infectious endophthalmitis, respectively.

Conclusion

Our bibliometric analysis provides an overview of dynamic evolution and structural relationships in the research field of endophthalmitis. The displayed hotspots and developmental directions have reference values for future investigation.

PATIENT-PHYSICIAN FACE MASKING'S INFLUENCE ON THE POST-INTRAVITREAL INJECTION ENDOPHTHALMITIS

PURPOSE

The authors sought to determine if universal face mask guidelines implemented during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic significantly influenced the incidence of endophthalmitis following intravitreal injections (IVI).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study reviewed the electronic health records from a retina-only practice located in Michigan. This study evaluated patients receiving IVIs over two distinct time periods of April 2019 to March 2020 and April 2020 to March 2021, which comprised our unmasked and masked groups, respectively. The authors then calculated the incidence of endophthalmitis following IVI and evaluated the cases of post-injection endophthalmitis for both time periods.

RESULTS

A total of 121,384 IVIs performed over the 2-year period of interest. Of these, 63,114 were unmasked and 58,270 were masked patient encounters. A total of 46 post-injection endophthalmitis cases were identified. Of these, 29 cases were from the unmasked period and 17 were from the masked period. This resulted in an incidence of endophthalmitis of 0.046% and 0.038% in the masked and unmasked groups, respectively. This difference did not rise to the level of statistical significance ( P = 0.1336).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that the incidence of post-injection endophthalmitis was not influenced by the implementation of ophthalmologist-patient face masking after IVI during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

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.

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.

Rates of endophthalmitis before and after transition from povidone-iodine to aqueous chlorhexidine asepsis for intravitreal injection

OBJECTIVE

To assess the rate of post-intravitreal injection endophthalmitis between 2 asepsis groups: aqueous chlorhexidine 0.1% and povidone-iodine 5%.

DESIGN

Retrospective, observational cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with infectious endophthalmitis post intravitreal injection (n = 58) at a single centre from July 2009 to July 2022.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of all patients receiving intravitreal injections (216 593 injections) at a single centre over 14 years. Patients from July 2009 to February 2017 received povidone-iodine 5%, and patients from March 2017 to July 2022 received aqueous chlorhexidine 0.1%. Assessed characteristics of endophthalmitis cases included demographics, visual function, intervention type, and microbiological results.

RESULTS

The rate of endophthalmitis was comparable for povidone-iodine (1.4:5000) and aqueous chlorhexidine (1.3:5000) (p = 0.77). Vitreous cultures were negative for 55% of patients. Visual acuity (VA) outcomes did not differ between asepsis groups nor between culture positive/negative groups. Patients having vitrectomy (PPV) had worse final vision (p = 0.08) but there was no VA difference between early and late PPV.

CONCLUSIONS

Aqueous chlorhexidine 0.1% is a viable and safe alternative to povidone-iodine 5% for post-intravitreal injection endophthalmitis prophylaxis and may reduce ocular surface adverse events and discomfort.

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.

Increased incidence of endophthalmitis after vitrectomy relative to face mask wearing during COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND/AIMS

To determine the incidence and causative pathogens of endophthalmitis after vitrectomy during strict face mask wearing in the COVID-19 period.

METHODS

This was a retrospective multicentre study including 31 ophthalmological institutions of the Japanese Retina and Vitreous Society or Japan-Clinical Retina Study group. Patients who had undergone vitrectomy during 2019, the pre-COVID-19 period, and from July 2020 to June 2021, the COVID-mask period, were studied. The results of cataract surgery were used as a control. The total number of vitrectomies and the total number of postoperative endophthalmitis were determined. Then, the differences in the incidence of postoperative endophthalmitis between the pre-COVID-19 period and the COVID-mask period, and the type of pathogens causing the endophthalmitis were studied.

RESULTS

The incidence of postvitrectomy endophthalmitis was significantly lower in the pre-COVID-19 period with 16 568 surgeries and 18 endophthalmitis cases (0.11%) than in the COVID-mask period of 14 929 surgeries and 31 endophthalmitis cases (0.21%; p=0.031, OR=1.913, 95% CI 1.078 to 3.394). In the pre-COVID-19 period, 4 of the 18 eyes were culture positive, and all were of the Staphylococcus family. In the COVID-mask period, 9 of the 31 eyes were culture positive, and 4 cases were related to oral commensals including Streptococcus spp, which are reportedly very rare in endophthalmitis after vitrectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

It is necessary for physicians to be aware of the higher incidence of postvitrectomy endophthalmitis during the COVID-mask period, and to treat their patients appropriately.

Lowering the Incidence of Endophthalmitis Following Intravitreal Anti-VEGF Injection: An Analysis of Aseptic Protocol Adjustment

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The impact of anti-sepsis-anesthesia sequence in intravitreal injection (IVI)-associated endophthalmitis is unknown. We compared outcomes of patients who had 10% topical povidone-iodine before or after 2% topical lidocaine gel during IVIs.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective study of IVIs in nine clinical sites was undertaken. Group 1 had lidocaine gel applied first. This protocol was changed on March 1, 2020, with Group 2 having povidone-iodine applied first. Visual and micro-biological outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Among 72 cases (0.07%) from 102,908 IVIs, Group 1 had 59 cases from 65,307 IVI (0.09%) and Group 2 had 13 cases from 37,601 IVI (0.03%; P = 0.001). There was no significant difference in the best-corrected visual acuity between groups. Highly virulent bacteria were predominantly isolated in Group 1, but proportions of gram-positive bacterial growth were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Application of povidone-iodine before lidocaine gel, compared to after, significantly decreased rate of IVI endophthalmitis, with no significant changes in visual and microbiological outcomes. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 2023;54:520-525.].

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.

Same-Day Bilateral Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implants for the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes and complications associated with the use of same-day bilateral intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implants for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

This retrospective analysis of an open-label, multicenter, consecutive case series included 130 eyes of 65 patients with bilateral DME who were treated with intravitreal DEX implants. The patients were divided into two groups: a control group (comprising 40 eyes treated with an alternating unilateral regimen) and a study group (comprising 90 eyes treated with concomitant bilateral DEX implants). All patients were followed up monthly after implantation. The changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) from baseline to sixth month after implantation, and ocular adverse effects such as intraocular pressure, cataract, and tolerability of bilateral implantation were reviewed. The primary endpoint was to assess the safety of the same-day bilateral treatment protocol. The secondary endpoints focused on evaluating the functional and anatomical changes associated with bilateral simultaneous or alternating implantations.

RESULTS

At 6 months after implantation, mean BCVA increased and CRT decreased in both groups. Moreover, no serious ocular adverse effects were observed. In addition, no differences were observed between the two groups in the number of patients who required extra follow-up visits or the number of extra visits made in addition to the treatment schedule.

CONCLUSIONS

Same-day bilateral intravitreal DEX implants are associated with a low complication rate and are well tolerated by patients. This safe practice may optimize efficiency and reduce the burden on both the health-care system and patients, when used to treat bilateral DME.

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.

Reduced Incidence of Intravitreal Injection-Related Endophthalmitis With Prefilled Syringes

Purpose: To evaluate the incidence and clinical characteristics of intravitreal injection-related endophthalmitis cases with antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) medications manufactured as prefilled syringes or non-prefilled preparations. Methods: This retrospective chart review comprised eyes that received intravitreal anti-VEGF at a single-specialty retina practice from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2019. Eyes diagnosed with injection-related endophthalmitis were identified. Demographic and clinical data were abstracted from medical records, including the type of anti-VEGF agent, baseline and follow-up corrected visual acuity (VA), and microbiologic findings. Results: The review identified 88 cases of intravitreal anti-VEGF injection-related endophthalmitis and 325 990 total injections. Total injections included 32 045 (9.8%) bevacizumab (BEV), 93 073 (28.6%) ranibizumab (RAN), 122 947 (37.7%) aflibercept (AFL), and 77 925 (23.9%) ranibizumab prefilled syringe (RANPFS). Ten of the endophthalmitis cases were related to BEV, 21 to RAN, 45 to AFL, and 12 to RANPFS. The endophthalmitis rate was lowest for RANPFS (0.0154%) (BEV, 0.0312%; RAN, 0.0226%; AFL, 0.0366%) (P = .030). Thirty-four (41.5%) of 82 samples were culture positive. RANPFS had a significantly lower rate of culture-proven postinjection endophthalmitis than the other agents (P = .003). The mean VA for endophthalmitis cases related to RANPFS vs non-prefilled agents was similar at presentation (Snellen 20/2092 vs 20/2327) and at the 3-month follow-up (Snellen 20/201 vs 20/272) (both P > .05). Conclusions: Anti-VEGF medications in prefilled syringes may reduce the risk for medication contamination during injection preparation. RANPFS was associated with a lower rate of injection-related endophthalmitis than non-prefilled anti-VEGF medications.

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.

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.

Face mask use and effects on the ocular surface health: A comprehensive review

In the COVID-19 period, face masks increased exponentially. Several studies suggest that the rise in ocular discomfort symptoms during the pandemic is mostly part of dry eye disease and that these are due to the effect of face masks, resulting in the newly described term MADE, for "mask-associated dry eye". The most commonly proposed mechanism states that wearing a face mask creates an unnatural upward airflow towards the ocular surface during expiration, although the increased temperature, humidity and levels of carbon dioxide of the exhaled air, stress, increased use of video display terminals, as well as changes in the ocular microbiota may contribute. Evidence supports that the use of face masks causes an increase in dry eye disease symptoms, a decreased tear break-up time, corneal epithelial trauma, periocular temperature changes and inflammatory markers secretion. Given that the use of masks may be frequent in some settings in the near future, it is important to establish its effects and consequences on the ocular surface.

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.

Clinical Practice Update: Management of Infectious Endophthalmitis After Intravitreal Anti-VEGF Injection

Although infectious endophthalmitis after intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor injections is rare, it is the most feared and potentially devastating complication of this procedure. There is no high-level evidence to provide definitive guidance on the management of endophthalmitis occurring after intravitreal injection (IVI). This clinical practice update reviews the published literature regarding post-IVI endophthalmitis and highlights areas in which further research is needed to better guide its management.

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.

Incidence, Prophylaxis and Prognosis of Acute Postoperative Endophthalmitis After Cataract Surgery: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis in Northern China from 2013 to 2019

Objective

To investigate the incidence of acute postoperative endophthalmitis (POE) after cataract surgery in Northern China from 2013 to 2019, evaluate the efficacy of prophylaxis and analyze the predictors of visual prognosis among POE patients.

Methods

The study was conducted as a retrospective multi-center research, with seven hospitals in Northern China enrolled. The diagnosis of acute-onset POE was made on the basis of clinical manifestations within six weeks after initial surgery. By reviewing electronic medical system, the number of cataract surgeries and acute POE cases were recorded to estimate the overall incidence and incidences by different years and hospitals. Perioperative measures for preventing infection in different hospitals were collected. The correlations between unfavorable final vision and potential factors including basic information and clinical characteristics were examined to determine the predictive factors for final visual prognosis.

Results

Of 72,255 cataract surgeries performed during seven years in the seven hospitals, 19 cases developed acute POE, yielding an overall incidence of 0.026%. The average incidence of acute POE among seven hospitals significantly declined annually during the past 7 years (p = 0.021). In Hospital-D, the incidence of acute POE significantly decreased after the application of 0.5% povidone-iodine (PVP-I) for conjunctival washing (p = 0.003). Two hospitals adopting tobramycin in the irrigation solution achieved a significant lower incidence of POE than the other hospitals (p = 0.044). The positive rate of pathogen culture was just 17.6% (3/19). Patients with presenting BCVA of CF or better were more likely to present with unfavorable final vision than those with worse presenting BCVA (p = 0.003).

Conclusion

The overall incidence of acute POE after cataract surgery from 2013 to 2019 in Northern China was 0.026%, and the incidence declined annually over the period. Presenting BCVA could be a significant prognosis factor for predicting the final visual outcomes of acute POE patients.

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.

Are intravitreal injections essential during the COVID-19 pandemic? Global preferred practice patterns and practical recommendations

Tertiary outpatient ophthalmology clinics are high-risk environments for COVID-19 transmission, especially retina clinics, where regular follow-up is needed for elderly patients with multiple comorbidities. Intravitreal injection therapy (IVT) for chronic macular diseases, is one of the most common procedures performed, associated with a significant burden of care because of the vigorous treatment regimen associated with multiple investigations. While minimizing the risk of COVID-19 infection transmission is a priority, this must be balanced against the continued provision of sight-saving ophthalmic care to patients at risk of permanent vision loss. This review aims to give evidence-based guidelines on managing IVT during the COVID-19 pandemic in common macular diseases such as age-related macular degeneration, diabetic macula edema and retinal vascular disease and to report on how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected IVT practices worldwide.

To illustrate some real-world examples, 18 participants in the International Retina Collaborative, from 15 countries and across four continents, were surveyed regarding pre- and during- COVID-19 pandemic IVT practices in tertiary ophthalmic centers. The majority of centers reported a reduction in the number of appointments to reduce the risk of the spread of COVID-19 with varying changes to their IVT regimen to treat various macula diseases. Due to the constantly evolving nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the uncertainty about the normal resumption of health services, we suggest that new solutions for eye healthcare provision, like telemedicine, may be adopted in the future when we consider new long-term adaptations required to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.

Endophthalmitis After Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Factor Injections: Outcomes of Eyes Managed Without Microbiologic Cultures

PURPOSE

To evaluate outcomes of eyes that developed endophthalmitis after intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections that were managed without microbiologic cultures.

DESIGN

Retrospective, single-center, comparative cohort study.

METHODS

We included all eyes with postinjection endophthalmitis from July 1, 2013, to September 1, 2019. Endophthalmitis cases were divided into the culture group if treated with intravitreal antibiotics and a vitreous or aqueous tap sent for microbiologic sampling or into the no culture group if treated with immediate injection of intravitreal antibiotics with an anterior chamber paracentesis that was not sent for microbiologic sampling. The main outcome measures were visual acuity, the incidence of retinal detachment, and the need for additional procedures.

RESULTS

Of 165 endophthalmitis cases identified, 119 (72%) were in the culture group and 46 (28%) were in the no culture group. At endophthalmitis presentation, eyes in the culture group had a mean logMAR VA of 1.98 (∼20/1900) compared with 1.90 (∼20/1600) for eyes in the no culture group (P = .589). At the 6-month follow-up, the mean vision loss was 5.5 lines lost from baseline for the culture group compared with 2.5 lines lost for the no culture group (P = .017). Eyes in the culture group required a subsequent pars plana vitrectomy in 29 of 119 cases (24%) compared with 7 of 46 cases (15%) in the no culture group (P = .29). Six of 119 eyes (5%) in the culture group developed secondary retinal detachments compared with none in the no culture group (P = .143).

CONCLUSIONS

When access to microbiologic facility is not available, the management of postinjection endophthalmitis using intravitreal antibiotics without microbiologic cultures may be an acceptable treatment strategy.

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.

Ocular and Systemic Complications of COVID-19: Impact on Patients and Healthcare

There is increasing information available about the effects of the SARS-CoV-2 virus on the systemic and ocular health of patients, as well as the effects of delayed health care. This mini-review summarizes the potential complications and treatments of COVID-19. Systemic findings include respiratory illness, risk of thromboembolic events, and neurologic findings. Some patients may develop persistent symptoms even after the infection resolves. Effective treatment options include glucocorticoids, antivirals, interleukin-6 antagonists, monoclonal antibodies, Janus kinase inhibitors and vaccines. Potential ocular findings of COVID-19 include conjunctivitis, cranial nerve palsies, and microvascular changes in the retina; most symptoms resolved over time. During the lockdown periods, teleophthalmology was utilized to triage non-urgent issues; patients who did present to emergency departments tended to have more severe disease with worse visual prognoses. While transient delays in outpatient ophthalmic care may be tolerated in some patients, others experienced significant vision loss with interruptions in treatments. Resumption of ophthalmic care as soon as possible may help mitigate the effects of delayed care due to the pandemic.

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.