4.4 Article

LOW ENDOPHTHALMITIS RATES AFTER INTRAVITREAL ANTI-VASCULAR ENDOTHELIAL GROWTH FACTOR INJECTIONS IN AN OPERATION ROOM A Retrospective Multicenter Study

Journal

RETINA-THE JOURNAL OF RETINAL AND VITREOUS DISEASES
Volume 37, Issue 12, Pages 2341-2346

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000001488

Keywords

intravitreal injections; endophthalmitis; safety; operating room; anti-VEGF; laminar airflow

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To evaluate the rate of presumed endophthalmitis (EO) after intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections in three European hospitals performed in an operation room (OR) under sterile conditions. Methods: A retrospective multicenter study between 2003 and 2016 at three European sites, City Hospital Triemli Zurich, Switzerland (CHT), Zealand University Hospital Roskilde, Denmark (ZUH) and University Clinic Bern, Switzerland (UCB). Intravitreal injection (IVI) database of each department was reviewed. All anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections were performed using a standardized sterile technique in an operation room. Injection protocols were similar between the three sites. No preinjection antibiotics were given. Postoperative antibiotics varied among sites. Results: A total of 134,701 intravitreal injections were performed at the 3 sites between 2003 and 2016. Ten cases of presumed endophthalmitis were documented: 4 in 50,721 at CHT (95% CI: 0.0071-0.0087%), 2 in 44,666 at ZUH (95% CI: 0.0039-0.0051%), and 4 in 39,314 at UCB (95% CI: 0.0092-0.011%). This results in one case in 13,470 intravitreal injections and a combined incidence of 0.0074% per injection (95% CI: 0.0070-0.0078%). Positive cultures were found in 4 out of 10 presumed endophthalmitis cases. Conclusion: The standardized sterile technique in an operation room with laminar airflow showed very low rates of endophthalmitis at three European sites.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available