The Pandemic Is Not Associated with Endophthalmitis Decrease after Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Injections

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.

Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Endophthalmitis Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Purpose

To evaluate the clinical characteristics and visual acuity outcomes of patients who presented with endophthalmitis prior to and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

Methods

This multicenter retrospective case series with historical controls included consecutive patients presenting with any form of endophthalmitis from March 1, 2019 to September 1, 2019 (pre-COVID-19) and from March 1, 2020 to September 1, 2020 (COVID-19) at Mayo Clinic Rochester (MCR), Health System (MCHS), Arizona (MCA), and Florida (MCF) sites. Cases were divided into "pre-COVID-19" versus "COVID-19" groups depending on when they first presented with endophthalmitis.

Results

Twenty-eight cases of endophthalmitis presented to all Mayo Clinic sites during the study period. Of these, 10 patients presented during the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic. During the same six-month period the year prior, 18 patients presented with endophthalmitis. Endophthalmitis etiology (post-injection, post-cataract extraction, post-glaucoma filtering surgery, post-pars plana vitrectomy, endogenous, and others) was similar between both groups (P = 0.34), as was post-injection endophthalmitis rate (P = 0.69), days to presentation (P = 0.07), initial management (P = 0.11), culture-positivity rate (P = 0.70), and need for subsequent pars plana vitrectomy (P = 1). Visual acuity outcomes were similar between both groups at six months, however, the mean LogMAR visual acuity at presentation was worse in the COVID-19 group compared to the pre-COVID-19 group (2.44 vs 1.82; P = 0.026).

Conclusion

Clinical characteristics and the post-injection endophthalmitis rate were similar during both periods, however, patients presented with worse vision during the pandemic suggesting that the pandemic may have contributed to delayed presentation, regardless, outcomes are still poor.

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.

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.