玻璃体内注射抗生素预防与眼内炎之间的关系:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。

IF 2.1 2区 医学 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Xiao Liu, Ping Li, Jiawei Wang, Zhihui Song
{"title":"玻璃体内注射抗生素预防与眼内炎之间的关系:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Xiao Liu, Ping Li, Jiawei Wang, Zhihui Song","doi":"10.1097/IAE.0000000000004687","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the incidence of endophthalmitis following intravitreal injection (IVI) with versus without topical antibiotic prophylaxis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from each database's inception through August 2024. The primary outcome measure was the endophthalmitis rates after IVI, while the secondary outcomes included the distribution and quantity of microorganisms and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) changes. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. For the meta-analysis, pooled summary estimates were calculated using a random-effects model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighteen studies (3,138,778 IVIs; 1,426 endophthalmitis cases) showed no significant difference in endophthalmitis incidence between prophylaxis and no-prophylaxis groups (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.85, 95% credible interval (CI) 0.72-4.76; P=0.2). For microbial analysis, we selected eleven studies that demonstrated no significant difference in culture-positive rates between prophylaxis and non-prophylaxis groups (OR, 1.23; 95%CI, [0.53, 2.84]; p = 0.63). Four studies provided best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) changes from baseline to final follow-up, antibiotic prophylaxis group showed a decrease by 4.5 ETDRS letters compared to the no-prophylaxis group, although this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.65).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Topical antibiotics did not reduce endophthalmitis risk or improve visual outcomes post-IVI. Given potential risks, routine prophylaxis is not recommended.</p>","PeriodicalId":54486,"journal":{"name":"Retina-The Journal of Retinal and Vitreous Diseases","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Association between Antibiotic Prophylaxis and Endophthalmitis Following Intravitreal Injection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Xiao Liu, Ping Li, Jiawei Wang, Zhihui Song\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/IAE.0000000000004687\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the incidence of endophthalmitis following intravitreal injection (IVI) with versus without topical antibiotic prophylaxis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from each database's inception through August 2024. The primary outcome measure was the endophthalmitis rates after IVI, while the secondary outcomes included the distribution and quantity of microorganisms and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) changes. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. For the meta-analysis, pooled summary estimates were calculated using a random-effects model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighteen studies (3,138,778 IVIs; 1,426 endophthalmitis cases) showed no significant difference in endophthalmitis incidence between prophylaxis and no-prophylaxis groups (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.85, 95% credible interval (CI) 0.72-4.76; P=0.2). For microbial analysis, we selected eleven studies that demonstrated no significant difference in culture-positive rates between prophylaxis and non-prophylaxis groups (OR, 1.23; 95%CI, [0.53, 2.84]; p = 0.63). Four studies provided best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) changes from baseline to final follow-up, antibiotic prophylaxis group showed a decrease by 4.5 ETDRS letters compared to the no-prophylaxis group, although this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.65).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Topical antibiotics did not reduce endophthalmitis risk or improve visual outcomes post-IVI. Given potential risks, routine prophylaxis is not recommended.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54486,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Retina-The Journal of Retinal and Vitreous Diseases\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Retina-The Journal of Retinal and Vitreous Diseases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0000000000004687\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Retina-The Journal of Retinal and Vitreous Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0000000000004687","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较玻璃体内注射(IVI)后有和没有局部抗生素预防的眼内炎的发生率。方法:我们系统地检索PubMed, Embase和Cochrane图书馆,从每个数据库的建立到2024年8月。主要观察指标是IVI后眼内炎发生率,次要观察指标包括微生物分布和数量以及最佳矫正视力(BCVA)变化。使用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表评估研究质量。对于meta分析,使用随机效应模型计算汇总汇总估计值。结果:18项研究(3138778例静脉注射,1426例眼内炎)显示预防组和非预防组眼内炎发生率无显著差异(优势比(OR) 1.85, 95%可信区间(CI) 0.72-4.76;P = 0.2)。对于微生物分析,我们选择了11项研究,这些研究表明预防组和非预防组之间培养阳性率无显著差异(OR, 1.23; 95%CI, [0.53, 2.84]; p = 0.63)。四项研究提供了从基线到最终随访的最佳矫正视力(BCVA)变化,抗生素预防组与无预防组相比,ETDRS字母减少了4.5个,尽管这种差异无统计学意义(p=0.65)。结论:局部抗生素不能降低眼内炎的风险,也不能改善体外注射后的视力。鉴于潜在的风险,不建议常规预防。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Association between Antibiotic Prophylaxis and Endophthalmitis Following Intravitreal Injection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Purpose: To compare the incidence of endophthalmitis following intravitreal injection (IVI) with versus without topical antibiotic prophylaxis.

Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from each database's inception through August 2024. The primary outcome measure was the endophthalmitis rates after IVI, while the secondary outcomes included the distribution and quantity of microorganisms and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) changes. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. For the meta-analysis, pooled summary estimates were calculated using a random-effects model.

Results: Eighteen studies (3,138,778 IVIs; 1,426 endophthalmitis cases) showed no significant difference in endophthalmitis incidence between prophylaxis and no-prophylaxis groups (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.85, 95% credible interval (CI) 0.72-4.76; P=0.2). For microbial analysis, we selected eleven studies that demonstrated no significant difference in culture-positive rates between prophylaxis and non-prophylaxis groups (OR, 1.23; 95%CI, [0.53, 2.84]; p = 0.63). Four studies provided best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) changes from baseline to final follow-up, antibiotic prophylaxis group showed a decrease by 4.5 ETDRS letters compared to the no-prophylaxis group, although this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.65).

Conclusion: Topical antibiotics did not reduce endophthalmitis risk or improve visual outcomes post-IVI. Given potential risks, routine prophylaxis is not recommended.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
9.10%
发文量
554
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: ​RETINA® focuses exclusively on the growing specialty of vitreoretinal disorders. The Journal provides current information on diagnostic and therapeutic techniques. Its highly specialized and informative, peer-reviewed articles are easily applicable to clinical practice. In addition to regular reports from clinical and basic science investigators, RETINA® publishes special features including periodic review articles on pertinent topics, special articles dealing with surgical and other therapeutic techniques, and abstract cards. Issues are abundantly illustrated in vivid full color. Published 12 times per year, RETINA® is truly a “must have” publication for anyone connected to this field.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信