4.6 Article

Emergence of Enterococcus species in the infectious microorganisms cultured from patients with endophthalmitis in South Korea

Journal

INFECTION
Volume 42, Issue 1, Pages 113-118

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s15010-013-0530-z

Keywords

Endophthalmitis; Enterococcus faecalis; Postoperative endophthalmitis; Posttraumatic endophthalmitis; Endogenous endophthalmitis

Funding

  1. Inje University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To investigate the microorganisms in culture-proven endophthalmitis and their susceptibilities to antimicrobial agents commonly used in South Korea. Medical records of consecutive patients with culture-proven endophthalmitis at eight institutions between 1 January 2004 and 31 July 31 2010 were reviewed. Four categories of endophthalmitis were studied: postoperative, posttraumatic, endogenous, and unspecified. Outcome measures were culture-proven infectious organisms, antimicrobial susceptibilities, and final visual acuity in the patients. A total of 93 microorganisms were identified from 103 patients during the study period. The positive culture rate was 59.2 % (103/174). The most common organisms identified were Enterococcus faecalis (in 20.8 % of patients, 20/96), Staphylococcus epidermidis (18.8 %, 18/96), other coagulase-negative staphylococci (10.4 %, 10/96), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (6.3 %, 6/96), and Klebsiella pneumoniae (6.3 %, 6/96). Two cases of Enterococcus faecium (2.1 %) were recognized. Overall, 70 of 96 (73.0 %) isolates were Gram-positive bacteria, 22 (23.0 %) were Gram-negative bacteria, and 4 (4.2 %) were fungi. The most common organisms resulting in reduced light perception were E. faecalis and K. pneumoniae. The emergence of E. faecalis in endophthalmitis is mainly caused by the high incidence of E. faecalis in postoperative endophthalmitis. This increase also impacts the final visual acuity of the patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available