Post-intravitreal injection endophthalmitis pattern during the COVID-19 pandemic with implementation of patients' masking.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the role of patient facial masks on the occurrence of post-intravitreal injection (IVI) endophthalmitis in a real-word setting. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort, patients receiving IVIs between 20 February 2019 and 20 February 2021; a 12-month period before the official beginning of COVID-19 epidemic in Iran and a 12-month period thereafter were included. In the pre-COVID era, patients underwent IVI without a facial mask while in the COVID era patients wore an untaped facial mask. Physicians and staff had facial mask in both periods. IVIs were administered in a dedicated operating room without a strict no talk-policy. The main outcome measure was the rate of post-IVI endophthalmitis. RESULTS: A total number of 53,927 injections was performed during the study period: 34,277 in pre-COVID and 19,650 in COVID periods; with a 42.7% decrease in the number of injections. Endophthalmitis occurred in 7 eyes (0.020%) in pre-COVID and 7 eyes (0.036%) in COVID era (p = 0.40). In multivariate analysis, after adjustment for intercorrelations between the eyes and multiple injections in one patient, there was no statistically significant association between wearing facial masks by the patients and risk of endophthalmitis (relative risk = 1.47, 95% confidence interval of 0.97-2.22; p = 0.071). CONCLUSION: Patients' facial masking is not associated with an increased risk of post-injection endophthalmitis.

The Influence of Universal Face Mask Use on Endophthalmitis Risk after Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Injections.

PURPOSE: Routine use of face masks for patients and physicians during intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections has increased with the emergence of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. This study evaluates the impact of universal face mask use on rates and outcomes of post-injection endophthalmitis (PIE). DESIGN: Retrospective, multicenter, comparative cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Eyes receiving intravitreal anti-VEGF injections from October 1, 2019, to July 31, 2020, at 12 centers. METHODS: Cases were divided into a "no face mask" group if no face masks were worn by the physician or patient during intravitreal injections or a "universal face mask" group if face masks were worn by the physician, ancillary staff, and patient during intravitreal injections. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of endophthalmitis, microbial spectrum, and visual acuity (VA). RESULTS: Of 505 968 intravitreal injections administered in 110 547 eyes, 85 of 294 514 (0.0289%; 1 in 3464 injections) cases of presumed endophthalmitis occurred in the "no face mask" group, and 45 of 211 454 (0.0213%; 1 in 4699) cases occurred in the "universal face mask" group (odds ratio [OR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51-1.18; P = 0.097). In the "no face mask" group, there were 27 cases (0.0092%; 1 in 10 908 injections) of culture-positive endophthalmitis compared with 9 cases (0.004%; 1 in 23 494) in the "universal face mask" group (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.22-0.99; P = 0.041). Three cases of oral flora-associated endophthalmitis occurred in the "no face mask" group (0.001%; 1 in 98 171 injections) compared with 1 (0.0005%; 1 in 211 454) in the "universal face mask" group (P = 0.645). Patients presented a mean (range) 4.9 (1-30) days after the causative injection, and mean logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) VA at endophthalmitis presentation was 2.04 (~20/2200) for "no face mask" group compared with 1.65 (~20/900) for the "universal face mask" group (P = 0.022), although no difference was observed 3 months after treatment (P = 0.764). CONCLUSIONS: In a large, multicenter, retrospective study, physician and patient face mask use during intravitreal anti-VEGF injections did not alter the risk of presumed acute-onset bacterial endophthalmitis, but there was a reduced rate of culture-positive endophthalmitis. Three months after presentation, there was no difference in VA between the groups.

Endogenous Endophthalmitis A Complication of COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case Series.

PURPOSE: To report six patients with endogenous endophthalmitis as a complication of COVID-19 infection. METHODS: A multicentric retrospective database review of patients with a diagnosis of endogenous endophthalmitis and a history of COVID-19 infection. RESULTS: Four of six patients were diabetics. All presented after an average duration of 40 days (Range 17-90 days) of COVID-19 infection. Two of six patients had bilateral involvement. Five of six patients had received intravenous corticosteroid for COVID-19. Two of six vitreous samples showed fungi (Candida and Bipolaris species), two showed bacteria (Staphylococcus species) and two samples were culture negative. Control of infection with good visual outcome in four out of eight eyes. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 patients with a history of hospitalization and prolonged use of systemic corticosteroids and comorbidities, for example, diabetes mellitus have a high risk of endogenous endophthalmitis. A high index of clinical suspicion with timely intervention can salvage many eyes.

The Impact of Physician Face Mask Use on Endophthalmitis After Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Injections.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of physician face mask use on rates and outcomes of postinjection endophthalmitis. DESIGN: Retrospective, comparative cohort study. METHODS: Setting: Single-center. StudyPopulation: Eyes receiving intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections from July 1, 2013, to September 1, 2019. INTERVENTION: Cases were divided into "Face Mask" group if face masks were worn by the physician during intravitreal injections or "No Talking" group if no face mask was worn but a no-talking policy was observed during intravitreal injections. MainOutcomeMeasures: Rate of endophthalmitis, visual acuity, and microbial spectrum. RESULTS: Of 483,622 intravitreal injections administered, 168 out of 453,460 (0.0371%) cases of endophthalmitis occurred in the No Talking group, and 9 out of 30,162 (0.0298%) cases occurred in the Face Mask group (odds ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-1.57; P = .527). Sixteen cases of oral flora-associated endophthalmitis were found in the No Talking group (1 in 28,341 injections), compared to none in the Face Mask group (P = .302). Mean logMAR visual acuity at presentation in cases that developed culture-positive endophthalmitis was significantly worse in the No Talking group compared to the Face Mask group (17.1 lines lost from baseline acuity vs 13.4 lines lost; P = .031), though no difference was observed at 6 months after treatment (P = .479). CONCLUSION: Physician face mask use did not influence the risk of postinjection endophthalmitis compared to a no-talking policy. However, no cases of oral flora-associated endophthalmitis occurred in the Face Mask group. Future studies are warranted to assess the role of face mask use to reduce endophthalmitis risk, particularly attributable to oral flora.