Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
American Academy of Ophthalmology Recommendations on Screening for Endogenous Candida Endophthalmitis.
Breazzano, Mark P; Bond, John B; Bearelly, Srilaxmi; Kim, Donna H; Donahue, Sean P; Lum, Flora; Olsen, Timothy W.
Afiliação
  • Breazzano MP; Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
  • Bond JB; Vanderbilt Eye Institute, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
  • Bearelly S; Edward S. Harkness Eye Institute, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University Medical Center, New York City, New York.
  • Kim DH; Casey Eye Institute, Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, Oregon.
  • Donahue SP; Vanderbilt Eye Institute, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
  • Lum F; American Academy of Ophthalmology, San Francisco, California. Electronic address: flum@aao.org.
  • Olsen TW; Department of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minneapolis.
Ophthalmology ; 129(1): 73-76, 2022 01.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34293405
ABSTRACT
The American Academy of Ophthalmology evaluated the practice of routine screening for intraocular infection from Candida septicemia. In the United States, ophthalmologists are consulted in the hospital to screen for intraocular infection routinely for patients with Candida bloodstream infections. This practice was established in the era before the use of systemic antifungal medication and the establishment of definitions of ocular disease with candidemia. A recent systematic review found a rate of less than 1% of routinely screened patients with endophthalmitis from Candida septicemia. Other studies found higher rates of endophthalmitis but had limitations in terms of inaccuracies in ocular disease classification, lack of vitreous biopsies, selection biases, and lack of longer-term visual outcomes. Some studies attributed ocular findings to Candida infections, rather than other comorbidities. Studies also have not demonstrated differences in medical management that are modified for eye disease treatment; therefore, therapy should be dictated by the underlying Candida infection, rather than be tailored on the basis of ocular findings. In summary, the Academy does not recommend a routine ophthalmologic consultation after laboratory findings of systemic Candida septicemia, which appears to be a low-value practice. An ophthalmologic consultation is a reasonable practice for a patient with signs or symptoms suggestive of ocular infection regardless of Candida septicemia.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Oftalmologia / Infecções Oculares Fúngicas / Endoftalmite / Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto / Academias e Institutos / Candidemia Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Etiology_studies / Guideline / Incidence_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Screening_studies Limite: Humans País/Região como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: Ophthalmology Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Oftalmologia / Infecções Oculares Fúngicas / Endoftalmite / Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto / Academias e Institutos / Candidemia Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Etiology_studies / Guideline / Incidence_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Screening_studies Limite: Humans País/Região como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: Ophthalmology Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article