Reducing rates of endophthalmitis from intravitreal injections - strategies and areas of controversy.

IF 3 2区 医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Current Opinion in Ophthalmology Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-05 DOI:10.1097/ICU.0000000000001120
Asad F Durrani, Varun Chaudhary, Sunir J Garg
{"title":"Reducing rates of endophthalmitis from intravitreal injections - strategies and areas of controversy.","authors":"Asad F Durrani, Varun Chaudhary, Sunir J Garg","doi":"10.1097/ICU.0000000000001120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>Post-injection endophthalmitis (PIE) is the most concerning complication that accompanies intravitreal injections. This review discusses the recent literature in endophthalmitis prophylaxis including types of antisepsis, the use of topical antibiotics, methods of anesthesia, masking, and office-based versus operating room-based injections.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Povidone iodine (PI) remains the gold standard for PIE prophylaxis. Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) is an alternative antiseptic agent utilized in other areas of medicine with similar broad spectrum antibacterial activity. Recent clinical trials have demonstrated that the rate of endophthalmitis is similar with CHG prophylaxis compared to PI prophylaxis while offering improved patient comfort at a similar cost. Routine use of topical antibiotics should be avoided as they do not appear to reduce endophthalmitis risk and may promote bacterial resistance. All methods of anesthesia appear to be acceptable. In-office injections are not associated with an increased rate of endophthalmitis compared to operating room injections.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>The rate of post-injection endophthalmitis is extremely low due to a myriad of measures employed by retina specialists. Topical antisepsis is the most important tool to combat post-injection endophthalmitis. CHG is emerging as an alternative to PI due to its efficacy and enhanced patient comfort.</p>","PeriodicalId":50604,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Ophthalmology","volume":" ","pages":"229-236"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Opinion in Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ICU.0000000000001120","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose of review: Post-injection endophthalmitis (PIE) is the most concerning complication that accompanies intravitreal injections. This review discusses the recent literature in endophthalmitis prophylaxis including types of antisepsis, the use of topical antibiotics, methods of anesthesia, masking, and office-based versus operating room-based injections.

Recent findings: Povidone iodine (PI) remains the gold standard for PIE prophylaxis. Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) is an alternative antiseptic agent utilized in other areas of medicine with similar broad spectrum antibacterial activity. Recent clinical trials have demonstrated that the rate of endophthalmitis is similar with CHG prophylaxis compared to PI prophylaxis while offering improved patient comfort at a similar cost. Routine use of topical antibiotics should be avoided as they do not appear to reduce endophthalmitis risk and may promote bacterial resistance. All methods of anesthesia appear to be acceptable. In-office injections are not associated with an increased rate of endophthalmitis compared to operating room injections.

Summary: The rate of post-injection endophthalmitis is extremely low due to a myriad of measures employed by retina specialists. Topical antisepsis is the most important tool to combat post-injection endophthalmitis. CHG is emerging as an alternative to PI due to its efficacy and enhanced patient comfort.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
5.40%
发文量
120
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Current Opinion in Ophthalmology is an indispensable resource featuring key up-to-date and important advances in the field from around the world. With renowned guest editors for each section, every bimonthly issue of Current Opinion in Ophthalmology delivers a fresh insight into topics such as glaucoma, refractive surgery and corneal and external disorders. With ten sections in total, the journal provides a convenient and thorough review of the field and will be of interest to researchers, clinicians and other healthcare professionals alike.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信