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.

ENDOPHTHALMITIS AFTER INTRAVITREAL INJECTIONS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF UNIVERSAL MASKING.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the rates of postintravitreal injection-related endophthalmitis during the COVID-19 pandemic with institution of both physician and patient face masking. METHODS: All eyes receiving intravitreal injections of any kind from a single large tertiary retina practice in Houston, TX before (August 2017-March 22, 2020) and after (March 23, 2020-September 2020) COVID-19 pandemic universal masking protocols. The total number of injections and cases of acute injection-related endophthalmitis were determined from billing records and subsequent retrospective chart review. The primary outcome was the rate of endophthalmitis after intravitreal injection. Secondary outcomes included visual acuity, time until initial presentation, patient age, and differences in the overall number of injections performed monthly pre-COVID-19 and post-COVID-19. RESULTS: A total of 134, 097 intravitreal injections were performed during the study period (111,679 pre-COVID-19 and 22,418 post-COVID-19 masking protocols). A total of 41 cases of acute endophthalmitis occurred in the pre-COVID group (0.04%, one in 2,500) and 7 cases in the post-COVID group (0.03%, one in 3,333) P = 0.85. CONCLUSION: In this single center, retrospective study, the implementation of universal patient and physician masking as practiced during the COVID-19 pandemic did not significantly affect the rate of postintravitreal injection endophthalmitis.

Proof-of-concept calculations to determine the health-adjusted life-year trade-off between intravitreal anti-VEGF injections and transmission of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Clinical ophthalmological guidelines encourage the assessment of potential benefits and harms when deciding whether to perform elective ophthalmology procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic, in order to minimize the risk of disease transmission. METHOD: We performed probability calculations to estimate COVID-19 infection status and likelihood of disease transmission among neovascular age-related macular degeneration patients and health-care workers during anti-VEGF procedures, at various community prevalence levels of COVID-19. We then applied the expected burden of COVID-19 illness and death expressed through health-adjusted life-years (HALYs) lost. We compared these results to the expected disease burden of severe visual impairment if sight protecting anti-VEGF injections were not performed. RESULTS: Our calculations suggest a wide range of contexts where the benefits of treatment to prevent progression to severe visual impairment or blindness are greater than the expected harms to the patient and immediate health care team due to COVID-19. For example, with appropriate protective equipment the benefits of treatment outweigh harms when the chance of progression to severe visual impairment is >0.044% for all scenarios where COVID-19 prevalence was 1/1000, even when the attack rate in the clinical setting is very high (5-43%). CONCLUSION: Unless COVID-19 prevalence is very high, the reduced disease burden from avoiding visual impairment outweighs the expected HALYs lost from COVID-19 transmission. This finding is driven by the fact that HALYs lost when someone suffers severe visual impairment for 5 years are equivalent to nearly 400 moderate cases of infectious disease lasting 2 weeks each.

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.