{"title":"The Patient Experience: 5% Povidone-Iodine vs 0.05% Aqueous Chlorhexidine.","authors":"Brandon Bates, Edward Wood, Philip Storey","doi":"10.3928/23258160-20260123-02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Aqueous chlorhexidine (aqCHX) is emerging as a safe and potentially gentler alternative to povidone-iodine (PI) for intravitreal injection anti-sepsis. In a single-center patient survey, we compared experiences with PI (141 patients) and aqCHX (92 patients). Patients receiving aqCHX reported less ocular pain or eye irritation than those receiving PI one hour (2.35 vs 1.45, <i>P</i> = .005) and one day (0.79 vs 0.34, <i>P</i> = .027) after their injection. They also described greater satisfaction with the IVI process (9.70 vs. 9.29, <i>P</i> = .014). A lower frequency of participants experienced worsened vision with use of aqCHX (19.6%) vs PI (33.6%, <i>P</i> = .02). This may suggest improved tolerability and patient experience with aqCHX over PI.</p>","PeriodicalId":19679,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmic surgery, lasers & imaging retina","volume":"57 3","pages":"201-203"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmic surgery, lasers & imaging retina","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3928/23258160-20260123-02","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aqueous chlorhexidine (aqCHX) is emerging as a safe and potentially gentler alternative to povidone-iodine (PI) for intravitreal injection anti-sepsis. In a single-center patient survey, we compared experiences with PI (141 patients) and aqCHX (92 patients). Patients receiving aqCHX reported less ocular pain or eye irritation than those receiving PI one hour (2.35 vs 1.45, P = .005) and one day (0.79 vs 0.34, P = .027) after their injection. They also described greater satisfaction with the IVI process (9.70 vs. 9.29, P = .014). A lower frequency of participants experienced worsened vision with use of aqCHX (19.6%) vs PI (33.6%, P = .02). This may suggest improved tolerability and patient experience with aqCHX over PI.
水溶液氯己定(aqCHX)作为一种安全且可能更温和的替代聚维酮碘(PI)用于玻璃体内注射抗败血症。在单中心患者调查中,我们比较了PI(141例)和aqCHX(92例)的经验。注射后1小时(2.35 vs 1.45, P = 0.005)和1天(0.79 vs 0.34, P = 0.027),接受aqCHX治疗的患者报告的眼部疼痛或眼睛刺激比接受PI治疗的患者少。他们还描述了对IVI过程的更高满意度(9.70 vs. 9.29, P = 0.014)。与使用PI (33.6%, P = 0.02)相比,使用aqCHX的参与者出现视力恶化的频率较低(19.6%)。这可能表明与PI相比,aqCHX的耐受性和患者体验有所改善。
期刊介绍:
OSLI Retina focuses exclusively on retinal diseases, surgery and pharmacotherapy. OSLI Retina will offer an expedited submission to publication effort of peer-reviewed clinical science and case report articles. The front of the journal offers practical clinical and practice management features and columns specific to retina specialists. In sum, readers will find important peer-reviewed retina articles and the latest findings in techniques and science, as well as informative business and practice management features in one journal.