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

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 following intravitreal injections administered by junior medical officers in rural Western Australia

BACKGROUND

Patients in rural Australia have limited access to intravitreal treatments due to a maldistribution of the ophthalmology workforce. To improve access, a novel outreach service model was implemented whereby junior medical staff administered intravitreal injections under a supervising ophthalmology consultant. This model involves outreach visits in hospitals, mobile clinics and a remote hub with intravitreal injections administered by junior doctors overseen by an ophthalmologist. The article explores the safety of this approach with respect to the rate of post-injection endophthalmitis.

METHODS

A retrospective audit was conducted by the Lions Outback Vision outreach ophthalmology service from 2017 to mid-2023. The number of injections, locations, diagnoses, intravitreal agents used, designation of administering doctor and cases of endophthalmitis were reviewed.

RESULTS

A 12 632 intravitreal injections were administered across 32 locations throughout rural Western Australia in the 6.5-year period. Three cases of endophthalmitis occurred representing a rate of 0.0237%.

CONCLUSION

The rate of endophthalmitis in the outreach service is comparable to other centres. The outreach model with supervising ophthalmology consultant support in person or via telehealth and administration of injections by junior medical staff has improved access for underserved or marginalised populations.

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.

Comparing the in vitro efficacy of chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine in the prevention of post-surgical endophthalmitis

BACKGROUND

Intravitreal injections are a common ophthalmologic procedure. While infections following these injections are rare, they can lead to endophthalmitis, with potentially serious consequences. Various methods have been proposed to prevent endophthalmitis, including the use of antisepsis and antibiotics in patient preparation.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the antiseptic efficacy of aqueous chlorhexidine (CHX) and povidone-iodine (PI) when used alone and in combination with lidocaine gel (LG) in vitro.

METHODS

Two independent experimental trials were conducted. The first trial determined the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) and the minimum bactericidal concentrations (MBCs) of CHX and PI against six bacterial strains. The second trial evaluated the bactericidal efficacy of the antiseptic agents (CHX 0.1% and PI 5%) and their combination with LG against the same bacterial strains.

RESULTS

CHX was more effective than PI in reducing the number of colonies forming units (cfus) of the tested bacteria. The order in which the antiseptic and LG were administered affected their effectiveness, with CHX administered before LG resulting in greater reduction of bacterial growth.

CONCLUSIONS

CHX 0.1% is more effective than PI 5% as an antiseptic agent. Application of CHX and PI prior to the use of lidocaine gel results in a more effective reduction of microorganisms.

Prevalence and antibiotic resistance in bacterial isolates of dogs with ulcerative keratitis in São Paulo State, Brazil

OBJECTIVE

Identify microorganisms present in canine eyes affected by ulcerative keratitis and assess its resistance profile to available antimicrobial drugs.

METHODS

Samples were collected from 88 canine eyes that exhibited ulcerative keratitis. They were identified using MALDI-TOF and subjected to antimicrobial susceptibility testing by disk diffusion.

RESULTS

Among the assessed subjects, brachycephalic dogs accounted for 74.48% (50/83) of the evaluated canines. Among the 88 evaluated eyes, 90.9% (80/88) showed positive cultures, with 11.33% (10/88) of the samples isolating more than one species of bacteria. Of all bacterial isolates identified (90), Gram-positive bacteria accounted for 63.33% (57/90), while Gram-negative bacteria constituted 36.66% (33/90), with predominance of Staphylococcus spp. at 35.55% (32/90) being, Staphylococcus pseudintermedius at 68.75% (22/32), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa at 15.55% (14/90), respectively. Staphylococcus spp. exhibited resistance to penicillin (89.29%), sulfadiazine and trimethoprim (60.71%), and tetracycline (67.86%), while doxycycline (88.89%), cefotaxime (85.71%), chloramphenicol (82.14%), gentamicin, and moxifloxacin (78.57%) showed the highest sensitivity rates. Pseudomonas aeruginosa displayed sensitivity (100%) to gentamicin and imipenem, and resistance (8.33%) to norfloxacin, ciprofloxacin, and cefepime. Similarly, the Enterobacteriaceae family showed higher sensitivity to amikacin and gentamicin (88.89%), imipenem (88.24%), and levofloxacin (87.5%), with pronounced resistance to amoxicillin-clavulanate (50%) and cefazolin (47.06%). This highlights multiresistance in 23.33% (21/90) of the isolates.

CONCLUSIONS

The most isolated species in canine ulcerative keratitis are S. pseudintermedius and P. aeruginosa. However, other species were also isolated, demonstrating diversity in ocular microbiota infection. There is a high-rate multidrug resistance associated with canine ulcerative keratitis. Nevertheless, these strains exhibited sensitivity to antimicrobials commonly used in veterinary ophthalmology.

Topical Antiseptics in Minimizing Ocular Surface Bacterial Load Before Ophthalmic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

To investigate the reduction of the ocular surface bacterial load induced by 2 commercially available ophthalmic antiseptic formulations, povidone-iodine (PVI) 0.6% and chlorhexidine (CLX) 0.02%, before ocular surgery.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Seventy adult patients undergoing intraocular surgery (phacoemulsification) were randomized to receive in the index eye PVI (group A) 4 times a day for 3 days or CLX (group B) 4 times a day for 3 days before surgery. The untreated eye was used as control. A conjunctival swab was taken in both eyes before (T0) and after (T1) therapy. Microbial DNA was quantified with real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis. The Mick algorithm was used to compare the abundance of each genus/genera against the distribution of abundances from the reference. At T1, patients filled a questionnaire to evaluate therapy-induced symptoms. Primary outcome was the reduction of bacterial DNA at T1 (microbial load), vs control arm, expressed as mean number of real-time PCR cycle times (CTs). Secondary outcomes were taxonomic composition, differential abundance, and therapy-induced ocular symptoms.

RESULTS

The T0-T1 difference in CT was significant in group B, but not in group A (mean [95% CI], 0.99 [0.33] vs 0.26 [0.15], P < .001, and 0.65 [0.3] vs 0.45 [0.41], P = .09, respectively). The taxonomic composition, alpha, and beta diversity remained consistent at all time points in both groups. The rate of patients reporting therapy-induced ocular symptoms and the mean discomfort grade were greater in group A than in group B (97% vs 26% and 4.97±2.48 vs 0.66±1.53, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with PVI 0.6%, CLX 0.02% induced a greater reduction of ocular surface bacterial load, with no significant alterations of the taxonomic composition. Moreover, CLX was better tolerated than PVI.

Antimicrobials and antiseptics: Lowering effect on ocular surface bacterial flora - A systematic review

Topical antimicrobials and antiseptics are used perioperatively to reduce the ocular surface bacteria flora (OSBF) that are involved in the development of post-operative infectious complications. However, their effectiveness is still a controversial topic. This systematic review, performed according to the PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO, aims to provide an overview of the efficacy of the agents currently used in peri-cataract surgery and -intravitreal injections (IVI) in lowering the OSBF. Although effective in lowering OSBF, perioperative topical antimicrobials are associated with the risk of resistance development, with no obvious additional benefit compared with topical antisepsis. Conversely, the effectiveness of topical antiseptics before cataract surgery and IVI is strongly supported. Based on the available evidence, perioperative antimicrobials are not recommended, whereas the perioperative use of antiseptics is strongly recommended as prophylactic treatment for lowering the infection due to OSBF. Post-operative antimicrobials may be considered in eyes at higher risk for infection.

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.

Endophthalmitis following same-day bilateral anti-VEGF injections: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To review the risk of endophthalmitis in same-day bilateral anti-VEGF injections.

METHODS

We searched 12 literature databases for studies on the risk of endophthalmitis after same-day bilateral intravitreal anti-VEGF injections. Data extraction was made independently by two authors and discussed afterward until reaching consensus.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies were included with a total of 138,478 intravitreal anti-VEGF injections (69,239 bilateral injections sessions) given in at least 7579 patients. In total, 33 cases of endophthalmitis had occurred, and no cases were bilateral. The incidence of endophthalmitis ranged from 0 to 0.53% per intravitreal injection across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that clinicians can consider same-day treatment of both eyes of patients in need of bilateral intravitreal anti-VEGF injection therapy, but larger studies are needed to quantify the exact risk of endophthalmitis.

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.

In praise of povidone-iodine application in ophthalmology

Polyvinyl pyrrolidone or povidone-iodine (PVP-I) is a water-soluble complex formed by the combination of iodine and a water-soluble polymer, polyvinyl pyrrolidone. This complex exerts bactericidal, fungicidal, and virucidal action by gradually releasing free iodine at the site of application to react with pathogens. In ophthalmology, PVP-I is used as a disinfectant and antiseptic agent for preoperative preparation of the skin and mucous membranes and for treating contaminated wounds. PVP-I has been shown to reduce effectively the risk of endophthalmitis in various ocular procedures, including cataract surgery and intravitreal injections; however, it has also been used in the treatment of conjunctivitis, keratitis, and endophthalmitis, with promising results especially in low-resource situations. PVP-I has been associated with complications such as postoperative eye pain, persistent corneal epithelial defects, ocular inflammation, and an attendant risk of keratitis. In cases of poor PVP-I tolerance, applying PVP-I at lower concentrations or using alternative antiseptics such as chlorhexidine should be considered. We provide an update on the efficacy of PVP-I in the prophylaxis and treatment of conjunctivitis, keratitis, and endophthalmitis and a comprehensive analysis of the current literature regarding the use of PVP-I in the management of these ocular conditions. Also, PVP-I-related adverse effects and toxicities and its alternatives are discussed. The goal is to present a thorough evaluation of the available evidence and to offer practical recommendations for clinicians regarding the therapeutic usage of PVP-I in ophthalmology.

[Intravitreal injections: Guidelines, methods and medicolegal issues]

Intravitreal injection (IVI) of a drug allows for immediate intraocular concentrations of active ingredients higher than those obtained by intravenous injection while reducing the risk of systemic side effects. Today, IVI's play a central role in the treatment of many vitreoretinal diseases. With the aging of the population and the advent of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) antagonists, their indications have increased exponentially, creating structural, organizational and economic difficulties. IVI is now one of the most widely performed medical procedures in industrialized countries, and its indications are expected to expand further in the near future with the development of new molecules. Although the overall safety of this practice is proven, an IVI exposes the patient to a 0.05 % risk of endophthalmitis, the consequences of which are often dramatic. This article details the current recommendations, in particular regarding asepsis and antisepsis, and proposes a typical sequence for performing an IVI.

The effect of ocular rinse volume on surface irritation after povidone-iodine preparation for intravitreal injections: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate whether the volume of wash out rinse after povidone iodine (PI) application for intravitreal injections (IVI) affects patients' ocular surface irritation.

METHODS

This was a prospective, single-masked, randomized-controlled trial consisting of 142 subjects. A total of 51, 45, and 46 patients received 3-mL, 10-mL, and 15-mL of ocular rinse respectively. Reductions in the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) and the Standardized Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness II (SPEED II) surveys, conducted before and at 24-72 h post-injection, were analyzed.

RESULTS

There was no statistical difference in objective dry eye findings of Schirmer test (p-value = 0.788), tear break-up time (p-value = 0.403), Oxford fluorescein grade (p-value = 0.424) between the study groups prior to injections. Dry eye symptoms as measured by reductions in the OSDI and SPEEDII scores were not different between the study groups (p-value = 0.0690 and 0.6227, respectively).

CONCLUSION

There is no difference in patients' ocular surface irritation between 3-mL, 10-mL, and 15-mL post injection rinse. Given the large number of IVIs performed, modification of practice patterns based on these findings could lead to significant reduction in global cost burden for IVIs.

Broad-Spectrum Antimicrobial Activity of Oftasecur and Visuprime Ophthalmic Solutions

Due to the wide etiology of conjunctivitis, the expensive and time-consuming diagnosis requires new therapeutic strategies with broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity and nonselective mechanisms of action. In this context, eye drops could provide an alternative to conventional antimicrobial therapies. Here, we compare the antibacterial and antiviral activity of Oftasecur and Visuprime, commercially available ophthalmic solutions. Cytotoxicity assay was performed on Vero CCL-81 cells by 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl-tetrazolium bromide (MTT) test. Antibacterial efficacy was evaluated on Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, and Klebsiella pneumoniae by disk diffusion, broth microdilution methods, and time-killing tests. Furthermore, the antiviral activity against HSV-1 was estimated by co-treatment, cell and viral pretreatment and post-treatment, via plaque reduction assay, fluorescence assessment (GFP-engineered HSV-1), and real-time PCR. After 24 h of exposure, Oftasecur and Visuprime showed a volume-inducing 50% of cytotoxicity of 125 and 15.8 μL, respectively Oftasecur and Visuprime induced 90% antibacterial activity in response to mean volume of 10.0 and 4.4 µL for Gram-positive and Gram-negative strains, respectively. Oftasecur exerted bactericidal action on both bacterial populations, while Visuprime was bacteriostatic on Gram-negative strains and slightly bactericidal on Gram-positive bacteria. A major impact on infectivity occurred by exposure of viral particles to the ophthalmic solutions. In detail, 50% of inhibition was verified by exposing the viral particles to 3.12 and 0.84 μL of Oftasecur and Visuprime, respectively, for 1 h. The reduction of the fluorescence and the expression of the viral genes confirmed the recorded antiviral activity. Due to their high antimicrobial efficiency, Oftasecur and Visuprime could represent a valid empirical strategy for the treatment of conjunctivitis.

PA, Phelps K, Bosse M, Karunakar M, Kempton L, Sims S, Hsu J, Seymour R, Churchill C, Mayfield A, Sweeney J, Jaeblon T, Beer R, Bauer B, Meredith S, Talwar S, Domes CM, Gage MJ, Reilly RM, Paniagua A, Dupree J, Weaver MJ, von Keudell AG, Sagona AE, Mehta S, Donegan D, Horan A, Dooley M, Heng M, Harris MB, Lhowe DW, Esposito JG, Alnasser A, Shannon SF, Scott AN, Clinch B, Weber B, Beltran MJ, Archdeacon MT, Sagi HC, Wyrick JD, Le TT, Laughlin RT, Thomson CG, Hasselfeld K, Lin CA, Vrahas MS, Moon CN, Little MT, Marecek GS, Dubuclet DM, Scolaro JA, Learned JR, Lim PK, Demas S, Amirhekmat A, Dela Cruz YM. Aqueous skin antisepsis before surgical fixation of open fractures (Aqueous-PREP): a multiple-period, cluster-randomised, crossover trial

BACKGROUND

Chlorhexidine skin antisepsis is frequently recommended for most surgical procedures; however, it is unclear if these recommendations should apply to surgery involving traumatic contaminated wounds where povidone-iodine has previously been preferred. We aimed to compare the effect of aqueous 10% povidone-iodine versus aqueous 4% chlorhexidine gluconate on the risk of surgical site infection in patients who required surgery for an open fracture.

METHODS

We conducted a multiple-period, cluster-randomised, crossover trial (Aqueous-PREP) at 14 hospitals in Canada, Spain, and the USA. Eligible patients were adults aged 18 years or older with an open extremity fracture treated with a surgical fixation implant. For inclusion, the open fracture required formal surgical debridement within 72 h of the injury. Participating sites were randomly assigned (1:1) to use either aqueous 10% povidone-iodine or aqueous 4% chlorhexidine gluconate immediately before surgical incision; sites then alternated between the study interventions every 2 months. Participants, health-care providers, and study personnel were aware of the treatment assignment due to the colour of the solutions. The outcome adjudicators and data analysts were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was surgical site infection, guided by the 2017 US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Healthcare Safety Network reporting criteria, which included superficial incisional infection within 30 days or deep incisional or organ space infection within 90 days of surgery. The primary analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle and included all participants in the groups to which they were randomly assigned. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03385304.

FINDINGS

Between April 8, 2018, and June 8, 2021, 3619 patients were assessed for eligibility and 1683 were enrolled and randomly assigned to povidone-iodine (n=847) or chlorhexidine gluconate (n=836). The trial's adjudication committee determined that 45 participants were ineligible, leaving 1638 participants in the primary analysis, with 828 in the povidone-iodine group and 810 in the chlorhexidine gluconate group (mean age 44·9 years [SD 18·0]; 629 [38%] were female and 1009 [62%] were male). Among 1571 participants in whom the primary outcome was known, a surgical site infection occurred in 59 (7%) of 787 participants in the povidone-iodine group and 58 (7%) of 784 in the chlorhexidine gluconate group (odds ratio 1·11, 95% CI 0·74 to 1·65; p=0·61; risk difference 0·6%, 95% CI -1·4 to 3·4).

INTERPRETATION

For patients who require surgical fixation of an open fracture, either aqueous 10% povidone-iodine or aqueous 4% chlorhexidine gluconate can be selected for skin antisepsis on the basis of solution availability, patient contraindications, or product cost. These findings might also have implications for antisepsis of other traumatic wounds.

FUNDING

US Department of Defense, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, McMaster University Surgical Associates, PSI Foundation.

A Case of Unilateral Corneal Edema after Exposure to 0.12% Cholorohexidine

Purpose: We report a case of permanent corneal opacity caused by unilateral chemical burns after exposure to a low-dose (0.12%) chlorhexidine antiseptic solution during a dental procedure.Case summary: A 33-year-old woman presented to our clinic with conjunctival injection, ocular irritation, and blurred vision in her right eye; all symptoms had been present for 2 weeks. These symptoms began several hours after a dental procedure, in which 0.12% chlorhexidine antiseptic solution had been splashed into the right eye. Initial examination revealed that the patient’s best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 20/200 in the right eye. Slit lamp examination and anterior segment optical coherence tomography revealed substantial corneal edema and stromal infiltration on the nasal side. The patient’s BCVA improved to 20/20 in the right eye after 3 months of treatment with topical corticosteroid. However, the stromal opacity was permanent and the corneal endothelial cell count was substantially reduced to approximately 550 cells/mm2.Conclusions: Low-dose (0.12%) chlorhexidine on the ocular surface may cause irreversible corneal opacity and chemical burn-induced endothelial cell damage.

Liposomal Ozonated Oil in Ocular Infections: A Review of Preclinical and Clinical Studies, Focusing on Its Antiseptic and Regenerative Properties

Ozonated oil has shown antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory and regenerative properties that make it useful in the prevention of infectious diseases and also as an adjuvant in wound-healing management. This review brings together most aspects of the use of liposomal ozonated oil for ocular infections and regeneration of the ocular surface. A search was performed in PubMed, Medline, Web of Science and Cochrane Library for studies published by June 2021. Search terms were combined to sort out papers on the properties and use of ozonated oil in ocular infections. A total of 25 publications were selected for this review on the composition, mechanism of action, restorative action, and preclinical and clinical studies of liposomal ozonated oil focused on ocular infections. In patients with complicated corneal pathology, liposomal ozonated oil has been found to restore corneal ulcers and improve keratitis. In patients with ocular pathologies involving inflammation and infections, liposomal ozonated oil has been found to improve and almost completely restore the signs of vernal, granulomatous and even adenoviral conjunctivitis. Liposomal ozonated oil has also been found to be effective in reducing ocular microbial flora. In conclusion, liposomal ozonated oil has an antiseptic and regenerative effect on corneoconjunctival tissues. It has demonstrated efficacy and safety profile for its use in ocular infections and can be considered as a suitable supportive strategy both alone and combined with other antimicrobial agents.

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.

Fusarium Keratitis-Review of Current Treatment Possibilities

In many parts of the world, fungi are the predominant cause of infectious keratitis; among which, Fusarium is the most commonly isolated pathogen. The clinical management of this ophthalmic emergency is challenging. Due to the retardation of the first symptoms from an injury and the inability to differentiate fungal from bacterial infections based on clinical symptoms and difficult microbial diagnostics, proper treatment, in many cases, is postponed. Moreover, therapeutical options of Fusarium keratitis remain limited. This paper summarizes the available treatment modalities of Fusarium keratitis, including antifungals and their routes of administration, antiseptics, and surgical interventions.

Cataract Surgery by Intraoperative Surface Irrigation with 0.25% Povidone-Iodine

Postoperative endophthalmitis after cataract surgery is typically caused by the patient's own conjunctival normal bacterial flora. A three-step approach is recommended to prevent endophthalmitis: (1) "border control" to prevent microorganisms from entering the eye by disinfecting the ocular surface is the most important measure; (2) bacteria that have gained access into the anterior chamber are reduced by irrigation; (3) bacteria remaining in the anterior chamber and vitreous at the end of surgery are controlled by antibacterial drugs. We have devised a method, "the Shimada technique", for irrigating the ocular surface with povidone-iodine, a disinfectant with potent microbicidal effect and established effective and safe concentrations for eye tissues. Povidone-iodine exhibits a bactericidal effect for a wide concentration range of 0.005-10%, but 0.1% povidone-iodine has the highest activity and requires the shortest time of only 15 s to achieve microbicidal effect. When used to irrigate the ocular surface every 20-30 s during cataract surgery, 0.25% povidone-iodine is conceivably diluted to around 0.1%. Irrigation with 0.25% povidone-iodine during cataract surgery significantly reduced bacteria contamination rate in the anterior chamber compared with saline (p = 0.0017) without causing corneal endothelial damage.