Timing of vitrectomy for treatment of endophthalmitis after intravitreal anti-VEGF injection: a systematic literature review of case reports and series

Abstract

Objective:

To perform a systematic literature review analyzing visual outcomes of immediate, early, and delayed vitrectomy in the treatment of acute endophthalmitis after intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections.

Methods:

We conducted a literature search using the Ovid Medline, Embase.com, and Web of Science databases, and relevant articles were selected from original English papers published from 2005 to 2021. Inclusion criteria were studies reporting cases of acute post-anti-VEGF endophthalmitis, defined as occurring within 6 weeks of injection treatment. Exclusion criteria were pediatric cases and cases explicitly reported to be caused by injections of contaminated drugs. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool for case reports and case series. The study dataset for descriptive and statistical analysis comprised patient-level data extracted from included studies. The timing of vitrectomy compared were defined as (1) immediate vitrectomy as occurring within 24 h of endophthalmitis diagnosis; (2) early vitrectomy as occurring between 24 and 48 h of endophthalmitis diagnosis; (3) late vitrectomy as occurring after 48 h of endophthalmitis diagnosis. Primary outcome was final visual acuity following treatment with vitrectomy.

Results:

Twenty-five articles were published that met our inclusion and exclusion criteria for a total of 86 cases. Thirty-seven were immediate vitrectomy, 25 were early, and 24 were late vitrectomy treatment groups, respectively. We observed differences in final visual outcomes and in improvement from diagnosis to final visual acuity, with patients receiving immediate and late vitrectomy to have better final visual outcomes than those patients receiving early vitrectomy (p < 0.005).

Conclusion:

Our results show that there may be an association between time to vitrectomy and visual outcomes. Immediate and late vitrectomy treatment groups had better visual outcomes than the early group. Our results were limited by the reliance on case reports and series and the paucity of data available specifying the timing of vitrectomy. Additional research is necessary to elucidate the effects of treatment timing in patients with endophthalmitis following anti-VEGF injection.

Plain language summary

Timing of vitrectomy for treatment of endophthalmitis after intravitreal anti-VEGF injection: a systematic literature review of case reports and series

In this study, we aimed to review existing literature to assess the associations between timing of surgery to treat endophthalmitis following intravitreal anti-VEGF injection and visual outcomes. The timing of vitrectomy compared were defined as (1) immediate vitrectomy as occurring within 24 hours of endophthalmitis diagnosis; (2) early vitrectomy as occurring between 24-48 hours of diagnosis; (3) late vitrectomy as occurring after 48 hours of diagnosis. We found 25 articles with 86 total cases. We observed differences in final visual outcomes and in improvement from diagnosis to final vision, with patients receiving immediate and late vitrectomy to have better final vision than those patients receiving early vitrectomy.

Keywords

endophthalmitis intravitreal injection vitrectomy

Introduction

Intravitreal injections of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) medications come with a risk of endophthalmitis ranging from 0.049% to 0.056%.^1,2 Treatment options for endophthalmitis include a needle vitreous biopsy accompanied by intravitreal injection of antibiotics (tap and inject; TAI) or pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) accompanied by intravitreal antibiotics. To date, the Endophthalmitis Vitrectomy Study (EVS) published in 1995 is the only randomized controlled trial to compare TAI and PPV for the treatment of post-surgical endophthalmitis. The EVS reported equivalency between TAI and PPV as initial treatments except for eyes presenting with a vision (VA) of light perception (LP), in which PPV was superior.

Since the EVS, the epidemiology of endophthalmitis has been changing.^3,4 With the advent of anti-VEGF as a mainstay treatment for vitreoretinal pathologies, the incidence of endophthalmitis due to intravitreal injections has been increasing. Furthermore, the disease course may vary due to the causative intraocular flora introduced with injection as compared with surgery.⁵

In the context of ongoing improvements in vitrectomy techniques, tools, and outcomes, it is important to continually evaluate the appropriate management of this disease.⁶ There have been no published controlled trials to compare the treatment groups for postinjection endophthalmitis, and clinical practice is largely guided by the results from the EVS.^7,8 Following the EVS, multiple retrospective studies and reports evaluating best practices for the management of postinjection endophthalmitis have been inconclusive regarding standardization of care.^6,9–15 To date, there is one systematic review comparing PPV and TAI as the initial treatments of endophthalmitis following anti-VEGF injections, which found no significant difference in visual outcomes between the treatment groups in published cases.¹³

No study to date has evaluated vitrectomy timing in the treatment of endophthalmitis following anti-VEGF injections. The purpose of this systematic review is to compare the visual outcomes of cases of endophthalmitis occurring after anti-VEGF injection treated with immediate, early, and late vitrectomy. The timing of vitrectomy compared were defined as (1) immediate vitrectomy as occurring within 24 h of endophthalmitis diagnosis; (2) early vitrectomy as occurring between 24 and 48 h of endophthalmitis diagnosis; (3) late vitrectomy as occurring after 48 h of endophthalmitis diagnosis.

Methodology

Study identification and eligibility criteria

We conducted a structured systematic review of the literature to identify all published reports pertaining to the outcome of endophthalmitis after intravitreal injections in which the treatment included vitrectomy. The PRISMA 2020 checklist for this study may be found in Supplemental Material 1. Studies were identified through a search using Ovid Medline (1946–2021), Embase.com (1947–2021), and Web of Science (Core Collection 1900–2021) database to find original English articles with the keywords “endophthalmitis” AND “intravitreal injections” OR “intravitreal” OR “drug or administration or injection” OR “antibiotic” OR “bevacizumab” AND “vitrectomy” OR “vitreous resection.” Keywords were selected based on expert opinion (M.G.K.) and evaluation of selected review articles on post-intravitreal injection endophthalmitis and vitrectomy. The search was completed on November 23, 2021.

Published articles including case reports, case series, or studies were considered eligible for our review if they satisfied our inclusion criteria: (1) the article was written in English; (2) the study examined human cases; (3) studies after the year 2005 (unless they are clinical trials for anti-VEGF drugs that included patients who developed endophthalmitis); (4) the article contained case(s) of acute endophthalmitis after intravitreal anti-VEGF injections; (5) visual acuity was documented for the patient(s) at the time of endophthalmitis diagnosis; (6) follow-up visual acuity was taken; (7) papers in which the patient(s) had sterile endophthalmitis in which the patient(s) was treated; (8) cases in which the patient(s) was treated for their endophthalmitis with a vitrectomy and TAI of intravitreal antibiotics or vitrectomy alone. We defined acute endophthalmitis as endophthalmitis occurring within 6 weeks of an intravitreal injection. This definition was based on the EVS study which included cases with “clinical signs and symptoms of bacterial endophthalmitis within six weeks after cataract surgery or secondary intraocular lens implantation.” The decision to include clinically diagnosed cases, including both culture-positive and negative, if tested, allowed for increased power for the analysis of this relatively rare complication.

Articles were excluded from this review if they met any of the following exclusion criteria: (1) pediatric cases; (2) paper that included case(s) of endophthalmitis after injections of tainted drugs, contaminated drugs related to compounding pharmacies endophthalmitis outbreaks, antivirals, or steroids.

Study selection and data collection

Following the computerized search, we reviewed the titles and abstracts of all retrieved citations. Articles were rejected after review of abstracts only if it could be determined that they did not meet the inclusion criteria or if any of the exclusion criteria applied. We obtained and reviewed full copies of the articles in detail to determine whether the study satisfied the selection criteria.

Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 2022) was used for article screening. Two study authors (D.J.H. and S.G.) independently reviewed titles, abstracts, and full texts to determine article inclusion in accordance with predetermined criteria. The third reviewer (M.G.K.) resolved conflicts during the screening process.

We sent emails requesting patient-level data to the corresponding authors of studies for whom our study variables were not explicit in the published articles. Follow-up emails were sent at two time points if no response was received. For the responding corresponding authors, we sent a data collection form including the study variables listed below.

A full detailed selection process of the studies can be found in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Study selection.

Articles that satisfied the eligibility criteria underwent independent structured review by two authors (D.J.H. and S.G.) to extract study data. A third reviewer (M.G.K.) resolved conflicts during the data collection process. Study data collected included: (1) Covidence ID #; (2) study ID; (3) year of publication; (4) date of publication (years); (5) first author name; (6) contact information for the corresponding author; (7) country in which the study conducted; (8) type of study; (9) number of participants included; (10) results by patient. For each patient, the following was recorded: (1) patient number; (2) age; (3) gender; (4) race, (5) primary diagnosis for which intravitreal injection has been performed; (6) intravitreal injection drug injected before endophthalmitis diagnosis; (7) treatment for endophthalmitis; (8) visual acuity before diagnosis; (9) when vision was taken before diagnosis; (10) time between injection and presentation with symptoms; (11) visual acuity at the time of diagnosis; (12) when vitrectomy performed after diagnosis; (13) final visual acuity after diagnosis; (14) when final visual acuity was measured after diagnosis; and (15) culture data, if available. Patient data was only recorded for cases that met our selection criteria.

Quality assessment

All included studies were case reports or case series. Data was collected on the level of the individual patient rather than cohort. As such, quality assessment was performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool for case reports and case series.^16,17 Two study authors (D.J.H. and S.G.) independently graded included studies in alignment with the JBI tool, and conflicts were resolved with the third reviewer (M.G.K.).

Data synthesis and statistical analysis

Because of the inclusion of case reports and series in the systematic review, we further guided our data synthesis by the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guideline, which was created to supplement PRISMA to offer a more detailed structure for standard reporting of methods and results.¹⁸ The SWiM checklist may be found in Supplemental Material 1. As no single study included offered enough data for statistical analysis of adequate power, a common dataset was created, synthesized, and analyzed.

For synthesis and analysis, individual cases were allocated to three treatment groups as defined above: (1) immediate vitrectomy, (2) early vitrectomy, and (3) late vitrectomy. The Snellen visual acuity was converted to logMAR equivalent for statistical analysis.¹⁹ As established by prior studies, vision levels of count fingers (CF), hand motion (HM), LP, and no LP were assigned visual acuity values of 2.1, 2.4, 2.7, and 3.0, respectively.²⁰

For the primary outcome, VA at baseline, diagnosis, and reported final were compared and presented. Changes in VA were analyzed per patient across the three time points by evaluating mean difference and assessing the magnitude of change to account for heterogeneity in baseline and presenting VA.

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize all data collected. Statistical methods for analyses and assessment of heterogeneity were performed including the t test analysis of variance for continuous outcomes, and the Chi-squared test for categorical outcomes, with statistical significance defined as a p-value of less than 0.05. All descriptive and statistical analyses and data visualization were performed in Microsoft^® Excel^® (2024).

Results

Study characteristics

Our search strategy identified 1,246 studies for title and abstract screening. We reviewed the full articles for 287 studies. A total of 19 studies met the inclusion criteria and had our study variables available in the manuscript. We emailed the corresponding authors for an additional 76 studies with incomplete extractable patient-level data, of which 6 studies provided patient-level data. A total of 25 studies were included in the study for review and analysis. Further information regarding the selection of studies can be found in Figure 1.

Our systematic search returned only case reports, case series, and retrospective studies. There were neither prospective nor retrospective cohort studies evaluating the effect of vitrectomy timing on visual outcomes. Characteristics of studies can be found in Table 1.

Table 1.

Characteristics of studies.

Study ID	Country	Number of participants included
Alkuraya 2009²¹	Saudi Arabia	1
Mezad-Koursh 2010²²	Israel	7
Emoto 2010²³	Japan	2
Cavalcante 2010²⁴	United States	1
Flaxel 2011²⁵	United States	1
Mithal 2013²⁶	India	7
Englander 2013²⁷	United States	1
Chaudhary 2013²⁸	United States	13
Saffra 2014²⁹	United States	1
Murad-Kejbou 2014³⁰	United States	2
Thomas 2015³¹	United States	1
Nakashizuka 2015³²	Japan	1
Kanchanaranya 2015³³	Thailand	2
Bhavsar 2015³⁴	United States	1
Singh 2017³⁵	United States	1
Salceanu 2017³⁶	United Kingdom	1
Hayes 2017³⁷	Australia	1
Gensure 2017³⁸	United States	1
Weinstein 2022³⁹	United States	1
Romero-Aroca 2012^a,40	Spain	3
Irigoyen 2012^a,41	United Kingdom	2
Kessner 2014^a,42	Israel	7
Simonett 2019^a,43	United States	12
Peden 2019^a,44	United States	12
Peng 2021^a,45	Taiwan	4

Study authors independently provided additional patient-level data not included in original published articles.

Quality assessment

Data for 10 cases were extracted from case reports, and 76 were from case series. All case reports and series met full criteria for quality using the JBI Critical Appraisal tool. The grading of individual studies can be found in Supplemental Material 2.

Immediate versus early versus late PPV in the treatment for endophthalmitis

From the 25 studies included, there were 86 eyes of 86 patients who received treatment for endophthalmitis following intravitreal injection of anti-VEGF agents. There were 37 (43%) patients treated with immediate vitrectomy, 25 (29%) patients with early vitrectomy, and 24 (28%) with late vitrectomy. Demographic data, indication for anti-VEGF, anti-VEGF used, and time frame between anti-VEGF and diagnosis of endophthalmitis can be found in Table 2. There were no remarkable differences between age and gender among the treatment groups. The most common indication for anti-VEGF injection was exudative age-related macular degeneration (wet AMD). The most common anti-VEGF medications used were ranibizumab and bevacizumab. Median time frame between injection and diagnosis of endophthalmitis was 4, 3, and 3 days for the immediate, early, and late vitrectomy groups, respectively (p = 0.610). Culture data was obtained with positive growth of various species for 66 cases (76.7%), and negative growth for 7 cases (8.1%). Results were not explicitly reported per case for the remaining 13 cases (15.1%).

Table 2.

Demographics and characteristics of anti-VEGF injection.

Group	Total	Immediate	Early	Late	p-Value
N	86	37	25	24
Age					0.715
N reported	55 (64%)	22 (59%)	17 (68%)	16 (67%)
Mean (SD)	71 (14)	70 (151)	73 (15)	70 (14)
Range	35–96	35–92	50–96	50–90
Gender					0.055
N reported	43 (50%)	19 (51%)	12 (48%)	12 (50%)
N female (%)	27 (63%)	11 (58%)	6 (50%)	10 (83%)
Indication for anti-VEGF
N reported	69 (80%)	30 (81%)	20 (80%)	20 (83%)
Wet AMD	56	24	18	14
Diabetic retinopathy	7	2	1	4
Retinal vein occlusion	5	3	1	1
Other	2	1	0	1
Anti-VEGF
N reported	84 (98%)	36 (97%)	24 (96%)	24 (100%)
Aflibercept	9	3	3	3
Ranibizumab	31	16	8	7
Bevacizumab	42	16	13	13
Pegaptanib	2	1	0	1
Days between anti-VEGF injection and diagnosis					0.61
Mean (SD)	4 (0.4)	4.4 (2.8)	3.8 (4)	3.6 (0.7)
Range	1–21	1–15	1–21	1–18
Vision at endophthalmitis presentation
>CF		3 (8%)	2 (8%)	6 (25%)	0.887
⩽CF, >LP		28 (76%)	19 (76%)	18 (25%)	0.997
<LP		6 (16%)	4 (16%)	0	0.114

AMD, age-related macular degeneration; Anti-VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor; CF, count fingers; LP, light perception; SD, standard deviation.

Mean follow-up intervals between diagnosis of endophthalmitis and measurement of final VA were 13, 9, and 10 months (p = 0.598).

Baseline VA prior to causative anti-VEGF injection was available for 30 (81%), 18 (72%), and 16 (67%) patients, respectively. Patient characteristics were similar between patients with and without documented baseline VA.

Across treatment groups, we observed statistical differences in final VA (p < 0.001; Table 3). Significance was likewise observed in the difference and magnitude of change between diagnosis and final VA (p = 0.003, <0.001).

Table 3.

Visual outcomes of treatment groups (logMAR).

Treatment group	Total	Immediate	Early	Late	p-Value
N	86	37	25	24
	Mean (SD)
Baseline	0.7 (0.6)	0.6 (0.5)	1.0 (0.7)	0.5 (0.5)	0.123
Diagnosis	2.2 (0.5)	2.3 (0.5)	2.2 (0.4)	2.0 (0.6)	0.298
Final	1.2 (0.9)	1.0 (0.9)	1.8 (0.9)	0.8 (0.8)	<0.001
Months from diagnosis to final	11.3 (14.5)	13.1 (17)	9.5 (14.5)	10.3 (9.9)	0.598
Difference between
Baseline to diagnosis	1.5 (0.7)	1.6 (0.6)	1.3 (0.7)	1.5 (0.7)	0.238
Baseline to final	0.4 (0.8)	0.4 (0.6)	0.7 (1.0)	0.1 (0.8)	0.088
Diagnosis to final	−1.0 (0.9)	−1.2 (0.8)	−0.5 (1.0)	−1.2 (0.8)	0.003
Magnitude of change between
Baseline to diagnosis	557% (642%)	710% (745%)	302% (388%)	540% (594%)	0.111
Baseline to final	89% (160%)	84% (114%)	114% (168%)	71% (223%)	0.737
Diagnosis to final	−44% (44%)	−56% (35%)	−17.4% (49%)	−55% (39%)	<0.001

SD, standard deviation.

Significant p-values are bolded.

Across groups, we did not observe statistically significant differences and magnitude of change between baseline and diagnosis VA as well as baseline and final VA (Table 3).

The number of patients whose final VA improved from VA at diagnosis was 32 (86%), 12 (48%), and 21 (88%; p = 0.00046). For all patients whose final VA improved from VA at diagnosis, VA improved by at least two lines (0.2 logMAR) or greater. The number of patients whose final VA returned to baseline VA was 11 (37%), 6 (33%), and 10 (62%; p = 0.166).

Of the 10 patients with VA of LP at diagnosis, final VA improved to 20/200 (0.7 logMAR) or better in 1 of the 6 patients who received immediate vitrectomy, and 1 of the 4 patients who received early vitrectomy. Of the remaining eight patients, two patients received immediate vitrectomy and one patient who received early vitrectomy had VA that did not improve from diagnosis. Visual outcomes may be found in Table 3 (Graphs 1 –3).

Graph 1.

Visual acuity by case.

Graph 2.

Difference in visual acuity by case.

Graph 3.

Magnitude of change of visual acuity by case.

Discussion

We found significant differences in final VA across treatment groups. The significance persisted in the magnitude of change analysis between diagnosis and final VA.

Overall, the mean diagnosis and final VA (2.2 and 1.2 logMAR; approximately CF and 20/300) in our study were comparable to that found in a previous systematic literature review evaluating PPV and TAI as initial treatments for endophthalmitis following anti-VEGF injection (1.8–2.2, and 1.2–1.5 logMAR).¹³

We observed that the immediate and late vitrectomy groups had better median final VA than the early vitrectomy group. While we found no significance between treatment groups regarding improvement from baseline to final VA, the immediate and late vitrectomy groups had greater improvement from diagnosis to final VA. Even when analyzing the magnitude of change, the differences between final VA and improvement from diagnosis to final VA remained significant.

While statistically insignificant, the observed differences in baseline VA across groups may partially contribute to observed visual outcomes. Furthermore, while differences in time between diagnosis of endophthalmitis and final VA measurements were statistically insignificant, we observed shorter follow-up intervals in the early vitrectomy group as compared to the immediate and late vitrectomy groups, which may contribute to the difference in final visual outcomes. The lack of standardized follow-up data limits direct comparison between the visual outcomes of the treatment groups.

Several prior retrospective studies have not specifically analyzed nor found clear consensus regarding the association between early PPV and improved visual outcomes in cases of endophthalmitis. However, studies lack standardization for the definition of vitrectomy timing. “Immediate,” “early,” and “late” PPV have each been considered with various ranges of overlapping timeframes and may not be distinct from timing of PPV as “initial” or “subsequent” intervention.^{8,11,15,46–54} “Initial” or “early” vitrectomy as occurring within the same day of presentation or within multiple days has important implications for clinical practice and management of endophthalmitis. While our study indicates that for our included cases, patients receiving immediate vitrectomy had improved outcomes than those with early vitrectomy, more data is necessary to inform clinical practice and decision-making regarding the immediacy of vitrectomy upon presentation. The development of standard definitions of vitrectomy timing should be considered to aid further research and analysis of treatments.

The theoretical benefits of early vitrectomy include increased volume of sample for culture and microbiological analysis; removal of bacteria, toxins, and material which may impede distribution of intravitreal antibiotics; and clearance of vitreous opacities and membranes.⁸

The Endophthalmitis post-intravitreal injection clinical trial (EPIIC) is an ongoing clinical trial that aims to evaluate and inform specific management for this disease entity.⁵⁵ Until the trial findings are published, one may rely on clinical judgment regarding the timing of vitrectomy.

Januschowski et al. found that vitrectomy within 6 h of presentation for postinjection endophthalmitis resulted in improved visual outcomes, though this study is limited by a small sample size of 30 cases as well as inclusion of endophthalmitis following injection of non-anti-VEGF therapies.¹⁵

The retrospective study by Chaudhary et al. evaluating 23 patients of postinjection endophthalmitis observed that 90% of cases regained baseline VA with initial treatment of TAI only, as compared to 46% that underwent subsequent PPV ranging from 1 to 21 days thereafter.²⁸ The authors recommended consideration of PPV for patients with worsening clinical course following initial TAI.²⁸ This study was limited by small sample size and nonspecific analysis of vitrectomy timing.

A meta-analysis by Issa et al. found no significant difference in the visual outcomes between groups that received TAI only versus vitrectomy as the initial treatment.¹³ However, the study is limited by low-quality evidence and unclear timing of treatment.

For current clinical practice, the 2024 American Society of Retinal Specialists (ASRS) Preferences and Trends Survey reports that for management of a patient with endophthalmitis 48 h after anti-VEGF injection with a visual acuity of HM, 71% of U.S. physicians would perform TAI only without initial vitrectomy, and fewer would perform TAI with subsequent vitrectomy within 6 h (4.6%), within 1–2 days (3.9%), and within 1 week (5.3%).⁵⁶ This stands in contrast with international respondents for whom only 19.4% would perform TAI only, and more would perform initial vitrectomy within 6 h with or without TAI (53.8%), within 1–2 days (21.2%), and within 1 week (2.6%).⁵⁶

Study limitations

Due to the restraints of inclusion criteria, this study was limited by the reliance on case reports and case series with associated limitations including selection and reporting biases. We were unable to complete a meta-analysis with the studies available for review. While we implemented a systematic selection protocol, we may have excluded studies meeting inclusion criteria for our review.

The study was limited to the information presented in the included studies and that elicited from authors, if emailed. As a result, we were unable to further characterize nuances related to disease presentation and clinical judgment.

Variations in causality have important implications as they may have different disease profiles with subsequent variations in management.^57,58 Distinguishing between sterile, noninfectious, and infectious endophthalmitis may be challenging. Generally, presenting signs and symptoms of infectious endophthalmitis may be more severe, consisting of more pain, visual disturbance, and greater evidence of inflammation, including hypopyon.⁵⁹ As the potential for severe, permanent vision loss is greater with infectious etiology, one should clinically have a low threshold for obtaining cultures and administering intravitreal antibiotics.⁵⁸

While the majority of included cases had positive culture growth with flora isolated via vitreous tap and culture, our study included cases for which cultures were negative or not explicit for patients. As such, our group analysis was unable to completely distinguish between sterile and infectious endophthalmitis, as well as infectious endophthalmitis caused by different pathogens. As the practical intent of our study was to evaluate the effect of PPV timing for patients presenting with signs and findings suspicious of endophthalmitis, initial treatment and decision-making regarding immediate versus early vitrectomy may be significantly limited by laboratory processing of samples, which may take days. In especially virulent cases, delay of vitrectomy may lead to devastating outcomes.

Due to the descriptive heterogeneity in overall treatment courses in the included studies, we only included the timing of PPV in our analyses and did not consider further interventions the patients may have received before the final VA was documented, including repeat PPV or injection of antibiotics. Clinically, the timing and use of intravitreal antibiotics may be important in disease course and visual outcomes. Furthermore, timing of follow-up at which final VA was obtained was not standardized across reported literature, which has implications for evaluation of treatment effect.

While we observed statistically significant findings, our analysis was limited by the small sample size in each of the three treatment groups. Our findings may not be generalizable and serve to summarize the scarce data available regarding the timing of vitrectomy. Performing randomized clinical trials on endophthalmitis is challenging given the relative rarity of the disease. We recommend more detailed reporting regarding the timing and series of TAI and PPV in future case reports and retrospective studies to aid the further evaluation of vitrectomy timing and visual outcomes.

Conclusion

Our results show that there may be an association between time to vitrectomy and visual outcomes, with the immediate and late treatment groups demonstrating better visual outcomes than the early group. Overall, most final visual outcomes improved from vision at diagnosis. Timing of vitrectomy as “immediate,” “early,” and “late” should be standardized with further clarifications of the intervention as initial or subsequent treatments.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-oed-10.1177_25158414241311064 – Supplemental material for Timing of vitrectomy for treatment of endophthalmitis after intravitreal anti-VEGF injection: a systematic literature review of case reports and series

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-oed-10.1177_25158414241311064 for Timing of vitrectomy for treatment of endophthalmitis after intravitreal anti-VEGF injection: a systematic literature review of case reports and series by Daniel J. Hu, Sophia Ghauri and Magdalena G. Krzystolik in Therapeutic Advances in Ophthalmology

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-oed-10.1177_25158414241311064 – Supplemental material for Timing of vitrectomy for treatment of endophthalmitis after intravitreal anti-VEGF injection: a systematic literature review of case reports and series

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-oed-10.1177_25158414241311064 for Timing of vitrectomy for treatment of endophthalmitis after intravitreal anti-VEGF injection: a systematic literature review of case reports and series by Daniel J. Hu, Sophia Ghauri and Magdalena G. Krzystolik in Therapeutic Advances in Ophthalmology

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the following authors for their contribution of additional data to this study: Drs. Pedro Romero-Aroca, George Morphis, Rivna Kessner, Joseph Simonett, Marc C. Peden, and Kai Ling Peng. We acknowledge Deborah Goss for her assistance with literature search methodology.

Declarations

References

Mccannel

CA.

Meta-analysis of endophthalmitis after intravitreal injection of anti–vascular endothelial growth factor agents: causative organisms and possible prevention strategies. Retina 2011; 31(4): 654–661.

Fileta

Scott

Flynn

HW.

Meta-analysis of infectious endophthalmitis after intravitreal injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents. Ophthal Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 2014; 45(2): 143–149.

Baudin

Benzenine

Mariet

A-S

, et al. Epidemiology of acute endophthalmitis after intraocular procedures: a National Database study. Ophthalmol Retina 2022; 6(6): 442–449.

Malmin

Syre

Ushakova

, et al. Twenty years of endophthalmitis: incidence, aetiology and clinical outcome. Acta Ophthalmol 2021; 99(1): e62–e69.

Ong

Angbue Te

Zagora

, et al. Post-surgical versus post-intravitreal injection endophthalmitis: changing patterns in causative flora. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2019; 47(1): 57–62.

Shao

Yates

, et al. Endophthalmitis: changes in presentation, management and the role of early vitrectomy. Ophthalmol Ther 2021; 10(4): 877–890.

Results of the Endophthalmitis Vitrectomy Study: a randomized trial of immediate vitrectomy and of intravenous antibiotics for the treatment of postoperative bacterial endophthalmitis. Arch Ophthalmol 1995; 113(12): 1479–1496.

Panahi

Mirzakouchaki-Borujeni

Pourdakan

, et al. Early vitrectomy for endophthalmitis: are EVS guidelines still valid? Ophthalmic Res 2023; 66(1): 1318–1326.

Muqit

Mehat

Bunce

, et al. Early vitrectomy for exogenous endophthalmitis following surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022; 11(11): CD013760.

10.

Peck

Patel

AC.

Endophthalmitis after cataract surgery: an update on recent advances. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2021; 32(1): 62–68.

11.

Clarke

Williamson

Gini

, et al. Management of bacterial postoperative endophthalmitis and the role of vitrectomy. Surv Ophthalmol 2018; 63(5): 677–693.

12.

Far

Yeung

Farimani

, et al. Tap and inject versus pars plana vitrectomy for postprocedural endophthalmitis: a meta-analysis. Retina 2021; 41(10): 2009–2016.

13.

Issa

Balas

Popovic

, et al. Pars plana vitrectomy versus intravitreal antibiotics for endophthalmitis management following intravitreal anti-VEGF agents: a meta-analysis. Acta Ophthalmol 2024; 102(1): e11–e21.

14.

Singh

Davoudi

Ness

Preventive factors, diagnosis, and management of injection-related endophthalmitis: a literature review. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2022; 260(8): 2399–2416.

15.

Januschowski

Boden

Szurman

, et al. Effectiveness of immediate vitrectomy and intravitreal antibiotics for post-injection endophthalmitis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2021; 259(6): 1609–1615.

16.

Munn

Barker

Moola

, et al. Methodological quality of case series studies: an introduction to the JBI critical appraisal tool. JBI Evid Synth 2020; 18(10): 2127–2133.

17.

Buccheri

Sharifi

Critical appraisal tools and reporting guidelines for evidence-based practice. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 2017; 14(6): 463–472.

18.

Campbell

McKenzie

Sowden

, et al. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. BMJ 2020; 368: l6890.

19.

Tiew

Lim

Sivagnanasithiyar

Using an excel spreadsheet to convert Snellen visual acuity to LogMAR visual acuity. Eye 2020; 34(11): 2148–2149.

20.

Day

Donachie

Sparrow

, et al. The Royal College of Ophthalmologists’ National Ophthalmology Database study of cataract surgery: report 1, visual outcomes and complications. Eye (Lond) 2015; 29(4): 552–560.

21.

Alkuraya

Al-Kharashi

Alharthi

, et al. Acute endophthalmitis caused by Staphylococcus lugdunesis after intravitreal bevacizumab (Avastin) injection. Int Ophthalmol 2009; 29(5): 411–413.

22.

Mezad-Koursh

Goldstein

Heilwail

, et al. Clinical characteristics of endophthalmitis after an injection of intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor. Retina 2010; 30(7): 1051–1057.

23.

Emoto

Lim

, et al. Regression of choroidal neovascularization after vitrectomy for postinjection endophthalmitis. Retin Cases Brief Rep 2010; 4(4): 312–316.

24.

Cavalcante

Murray

, et al. Intravitreal injection analysis at the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute: evaluation of clinical indications for the treatment and incidence rates of endophthalmitis. Clin Ophthalmol 2010; 4: 519–524.

25.

Flaxel

Schlesinger

Lauer

Culture-positive endophthalmitis 6 hours after intravitreal antibiotics. Retin Cases Brief Rep 2011; 5(1): 14–15.

26.

Mithal

Mathai

Pathengay

, et al. Endophthalmitis following intravitreal anti-VEGF injections in ambulatory surgical centre facility: incidence, management and outcome. Br J Ophthalmol 2013; 97(12): 1609–1612.

27.

Englander

Chen

Paschalis

, et al. Intravitreal injections at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary: analysis of treatment indications and postinjection endophthalmitis rates. Br J Ophthalmol 2013; 97(4): 460–465.

28.

Chaudhary

Romero

Ezon

, et al. Pars plana vitrectomy in the management of patients diagnosed with endophthalmitis following intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injection. Retina 2013; 33(7): 1407–1416.

29.

Saffra

Moriarty

Burkholderia cepacia endophthalmitis, in a penicillin allergic patient, following a ranibizumab injection. BMJ Case Rep 2014; 2014: bcr2013202075.

30.

Murad-Kejbou

Kashani

Capone

Jr , et al. Staphylococcus lugdunensis endophthalmitis after intravitreal injection: a case series. Retin Cases Brief Rep 2014; 8(1): 41–44.

31.

Thomas

Yonekawa

Ruby

, et al. Aggressive surgical therapy with early vitrectomy, panretinal photocoagulation, and silicone oil tamponade for streptococcus mitis endophthalmitis. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 2015; 46(8): 893–895.

32.

Nakashizuka

Shimada

Hattori

, et al. Vitrectomy using 0.025% povidone-iodine in balanced salt solution plus for the treatment of postoperative endophthalmitis. Retina 2015; 35(6): 1087–1094.

33.

Kanchanaranya

Rojdamrongratana

Piyasoonthorn

Incidence of post-intravitreal anti-VEGF endophthalmitis at Thammasat University Hospital. J Med Assoc Thai 2015; 98(5): 489–494.

34.

Bhavsar

Sandler

DR.

Eliminating antibiotic prophylaxis for intravitreal injections: a consecutive series of 18,839 injections by a single surgeon. Retina 2015; 35(4): 783–788.

35.

Singh

Patel

Kishore

Acute endophthalmitis caused by Leuconostoc spp. following intravitreal bevacizumab injection. Case Rep Ophthalmol 2017; 8(3): 510–514.

36.

Salceanu

Levy

Cunningham

, et al. Severe Gemella haemolysans endophthalmitis following ranibizumab intravitreal injection. Indian J Ophthalmol 2017; 65(11): 1249–1251.

37.

Hayes

Bennett

O’Hagan

Rothia dentocariosa endophthalmitis following intravitreal injection—a case report. J Ophthalmic Inflamm Infect 2017; 7(1): 24.

38.

Gensure

Hsu

Federman

, et al. Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus-induced frosted branch angiitis after intravitreal anti–vascular endothelial growth factor injection. Retinal Cases Brief Rep 2017; 11(1): 60–62.

39.

Weinstein

Greven

MA.

Endophthalmitis presenting as retinal vasculitis less than 24 hours after aflibercept injection: a case report. Retin Cases Brief Rep 2022; 16(6): 685–687.

40.

Romero-Aroca

Sararols

Arias

, et al. Topical azithromycin or ofloxacin for endophthalmitis prophylaxis after intravitreal injection. Clin Ophthalmol 2012; 6: 1595–1599.

41.

Irigoyen

Ziahosseini

Morphis

, et al. Endophthalmitis following intravitreal injections. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2012; 250(4): 499–505.

42.

Kessner

Golan

Barak

Changes in the etiology of endophthalmitis from 2003 to 2010 in a large tertiary medical center. Eur J Ophthalmol 2014; 24(6): 918–924.

43.

Simonett

Igelman

Taylor

, et al. Culture-proven endophthalmitis after intravitreal injection: a 10-year analysis. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 2019; 50(1): 33–38.

44.

Peden

Hammer

Suñer

IJ.

Dilute povidone-iodine prophylaxis maintains safety while improving patient comfort after intravitreal injections. Retina 2019; 39(11): 2219–2224.

45.

Peng

K-L

Kung

Y-H

Tsai

H-S

, et al. Treatment outcomes of acute postoperative infectious endophthalmitis. BMC Ophthalmol 2021; 21(1): 384.

46.

Kuhn

Gini

Vitrectomy for endophthalmitis. Ophthalmology 2006; 113(4): 714.

47.

Kuhn

Gini

Complete and early vitrectomy for endophthalmitis (CEVE) as today’s alternative to the Endophthalmitis Vitrectomy Study. In: Kirchhof

Wong

(eds.) Vitreo-retinal surgery. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Germany, 2007, pp. 53–68.

48.

I-V

Fernandez-Sanz

Levasseur

, et al. Early pars plana vitrectomy for treatment of acute infective endophthalmitis. Asia-Pac J Ophthalmol 2019; 8(1): 3–7.

49.

Soliman

Gini

Kuhn

, et al. Visual outcome of early vitrectomy and intravitreal antibiotics in acute postsurgical and postintravitreal injection endophthalmitis: European Vitreo-Retinal Society Endophthalmitis Study Report Two. Retina 2021; 41(2): 423–430.

50.

Negretti

Chan

Pavesio

, et al. Vitrectomy for endophthalmitis: 5-year study of outcomes and complications. BMJ Open Ophthalmol 2020; 5(1): e000423.

51.

Lyall

Tey

Foot

, et al. Post-intravitreal anti-VEGF endophthalmitis in the United Kingdom: incidence, features, risk factors, and outcomes. Eye (Lond) 2012; 26(12): 1517–1526.

52.

Kurniawan

Rocke

Sandhu

, et al. Predictors of visual outcome and the role of early vitrectomy in streptococcal endophthalmitis: response. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2018; 46(5): 578.

53.

Dossarps

Bron

Koehrer

, et al. Endophthalmitis after intravitreal injections: incidence, presentation, management, and visual outcome. Am J Ophthalmol 2015; 160(1): 17.e1–25.e1.

54.

Choi

Han

Lee

, et al. Impact of antibiotic resistance of pathogens and early vitrectomy on the prognosis of infectious endophthalmitis: a 10-year retrospective study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2019; 257(4): 805–813.

55.

Muni

Endophthalmitis post intravitreal injections (EPIIC). ClinicalTrials Gov, 353, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04 (2019, accessed 1 June 2024).

56.

Hahn

ASRS 2024 preferences and trends membership survey. Chicago, IL, 2024.

57.

Sachdeva

Moshiri

Leder

, et al. Endophthalmitis following intravitreal injection of anti-VEGF agents: long-term outcomes and the identification of unusual micro-organisms. J Ophthalmic Inflamm Infect 2016; 6(1): 2.

58.

Merani

Johnson

McCannel

, et al. Clinical practice update: management of infectious endophthalmitis after intravitreal anti-VEGF injection. J Vitreoretin Dis 2022; 6(6): 443–451.

59.

Schwartz

Flynn

Emerson

, et al. Distinguishing between infectious endophthalmitis and noninfectious inflammation following intravitreal anti-VEGF injection. J Vitreoretin Dis 2019; 3(1): 42–44.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB