Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
, 11 (6), e0156431
eCollection

Antibioprophylaxis in Prevention of Endophthalmitis in Intravitreal Injection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Affiliations
Review

Antibioprophylaxis in Prevention of Endophthalmitis in Intravitreal Injection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Cédric Benoist d'Azy et al. PLoS One.

Abstract

Despite endophthalmitis being the most feared complication, antibioprophylaxis remains controversial in intravitreal injections. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of antibioprophylaxis in intravitreal injections in the prevention of endophthalmitis. The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Science Direct databases were searched for studies comparing groups with and without antibiotics in intravitreal injection, with the use of the following keywords: "antibiotic*", "endophthalmitis" and "intravitreal injection*". To be included, studies needed to specify number of participants and number of endophthalmitis within each group (with and without antibiotics). We conducted meta-analysis on the prevalence of clinical endophthalmitis including both culture-proven and culture negative samples. Nine studies were included. A total of 88 incidences of endophthalmitis were reported from 174,159 injections (0.051% i.e., one incidence of endophthalmitis for 1979 injections). Specifically, 59 incidences of endophthalmitis were reported from 113,530 injections in the group with antibiotics (0.052% or one incidence of endophthalmitis for 1924 injections) and 29 incidences of endophthalmitis from 60,633 injections in the group without antibiotics (0.048% or one endophthalmitis for 2091 injections). Our meta-analysis did not report a significant difference in the prevalence of clinical endophthalimitis between the two groups with and without topical antibiotics: the odds ratio of clinical endophthalimitis was 0.804 (CI95% 0.384-1.682, p = 0.56) for the antibiotic group compared with the group without antibiotics. In conclusion, we performed the first large meta-analysis demonstrating that antibioprophylaxis is not required in intravitreal injections. Strict rules of asepsis remain the only evidence-based prophylaxis of endophthalmitis. The results support initiatives to reduce the global threat of resistance to antibiotics.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Search strategy.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Odd ratio for each study including both culture-proven and culture negative endophthalmitis.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Odd ratio for each study including only culture-proven endophthalmitis.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 11 PubMed Central articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Avery RL, Bakri SJ, Blumenkranz MS, Brucker AJ, Cunningham ET Jr, D'Amico DJ, et al. (2014) Intravitreal injection technique and monitoring: updated guidelines of an expert panel. Retina 34 Suppl 12: S1–S18. - PubMed
    1. Wykoff CC, Flynn HW Jr, Rosenfeld PJ (2011) Prophylaxis for endophthalmitis following intravitreal injection: antisepsis and antibiotics. Am J Ophthalmol 152: 717–719 e712. 10.1016/j.ajo.2011.07.002 - DOI - PubMed
    1. de Caro JJ, Ta CN, Ho HK, Cabael L, Hu N, Sanislo SR, et al. (2008) Bacterial contamination of ocular surface and needles in patients undergoing intravitreal injections. Retina 28: 877–883. 10.1097/IAE.0b013e31816b3180 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dossarps D, Bron AM, Koehrer P, Aho-Glele LS, Creuzot-Garcher C, FRCR Net (2015) Endophthalmitis After Intravitreal Injections: Incidence, Presentation, Management, and Visual Outcome. Am J Ophthalmol 160: 17–25 e11. 10.1016/j.ajo.2015.04.013 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sigford DK, Reddy S, Mollineaux C, Schaal S (2015) Global reported endophthalmitis risk following intravitreal injections of anti-VEGF: a literature review and analysis. Clin Ophthalmol 9: 773–781. 10.2147/OPTH.S77067 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms

Substances

Grant support

This study was funded by the University Hospital of Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Feedback