ENDOPHTHALMITIS AFTER INTRAVITREAL INJECTIONS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF UNIVERSAL MASKING

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.