You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 103, Issue 9
  • Cluster endophthalmitis due to Stenotrophomonas maltophilia following intravitreal bevacizumab: outcomes of patients from North India

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Clinical science
Cluster endophthalmitis due to Stenotrophomonas maltophilia following intravitreal bevacizumab: outcomes of patients from North India
  1. Aniruddha Kishandutt Agarwal1,
  2. Kanika Aggarwal1,
  3. Ramanuj Samanta1,
  4. Archana Angrup2,
  5. Manisha Biswal2,
  6. Pallab Ray2,
  7. Mohit Dogra1,
  8. Deeksha Katoch1,
  9. Reema Bansal1,
  10. Ramandeep Singh1,
  11. Mangat R Dogra1,
  12. Vishali Gupta1
  1. 1 Advanced Eye Center, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India
  2. 2 Department of Medical Microbiology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India
  1. Correspondence to Dr Vishali Gupta, Advanced Eye Center, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh 160012, India; vishalisara{at}yahoo.co.in

Abstract

Purpose To study features, management and outcomes of cluster endophthalmitis following intravitreal bevacizumab (BCZ) injection in North India.

Methods In this retrospective study, 28 patients (23 men) (mean age of 59.07±13 years) who received intravitreal injection of BCZ were included. Demographic details, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), clinical features, microbiological findings and management of patients who developed endophthalmitis after injection of contaminated BCZ injections were reviewed. The organism isolated was Stenotrophomonas maltophilia.

Results All patients suffered from painful diminution of vision within 24–48 hours. Of the 28 eyes, 12 had lid and corneal oedema, raised intraocular pressure (IOP) (difference between mean preinjection and postinjection IOP: 4.42 mm Hg; p=0.005) and toxic anterior segment syndrome-like picture. 16 eyes presented with clear cornea, severe vitritis and poor media clarity. Among these, three eyes showed posterior hypopyon. Seventeen eyes underwent primary pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) and intravitreal vancomycin+ceftazidime based on severity of inflammation. Eleven eyes underwent primary tap and inject. Among these, four eyes required PPV due to persistent inflammation. Eleven eyes showed positive staining for Gram-negative bacilli. Seven eyes were culture positive for S. maltophilia. Mean preinjection BCVA was 0.77±0.48. The first recorded postinjection BCVA was 2.52±0.82. BCVA (at 1 month) improved to 0.88±0.66.

Conclusions S. maltophilia can be found contaminating hospital surfaces and water supply. Early PPV, prompt intravitreal antibiotics and close communication with microbiologists greatly aided in salvaging all eyes from our cohort. Majority of the patients recovered their preinjection BCVA and IOP and achieved quiescence of inflammation.

  • infection
  • inflammation
  • pharmacology
  • public health
  • treatment surgery

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2018-313131

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors AA, KA and VG contributed to the study design, data collection, data analysis, drafting and finalising the manuscript, and patient management. RS, MD, DK, RB, RS and MRD contributed to the data collection, analysis and patient management. MB, AA and PR contributed to data acquisition, analysis of the data and microbiological analysis. All the authors revised and approved the final manuscript, and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent Not required.

    • Ethics approval PGIMER Ethics Committee.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.