Endogenous Fungal Endophthalmitis following COVID-19 Hospitalization: Evidence from a Year-Long Observational Study.

PURPOSE: To describe cases of endogenous fungal endophthalmitis (EFE) post-recovery from or hospitalization for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: This prospective audit involved patients with suspected endophthalmitis referred to a tertiary eye care center over a one-year period. Comprehensive ocular examinations, laboratory studies, and imaging were performed. Confirmed cases of EFE with a recent history of COVID-19 hospitalization±intensive care unit admission were identified, documented, managed, followed up, and described. RESULTS: Seven eyes of six patients were reported; 5/6 were male, and the mean age was 55. The mean duration of hospitalization for COVID-19 was approximately 28 days (14-45); the mean time from discharge to onset of visual symptoms was 22 days (0-35). All patients had underlying conditions (5/6 hypertension; 3/6 diabetes mellitus; 2/6 asthma) and had received dexamethasone and remdesivir during their COVID-related hospitalization. All presented with decreased vision, and 4/6 complained of floaters. Baseline visual acuity ranged from light perception (LP) to counting fingers (CF). The fundus was not visible in 3 out of 7 eyes; the other 4 had "creamy-white fluffy lesions" at the posterior pole as well as significant vitritis. Vitreous taps were positive for Candida species in six and Aspergillus species in one eye. Anti-fungal treatment included intravenous amphotericin B followed by oral voriconazole and intravitreal amphotericin B. Three eyes underwent vitrectomy; the systemic health of two patients precluded surgery. One patient (with aspergillosis) died; the others were followed for 7-10 months - the final visual outcome improved from CF to 20/200-20/50 in 4 eyes and worsened (hand motion to LP) or did not change (LP), in two others. CONCLUSION: Ophthalmologists should maintain a high index of clinical suspicion for EFE in cases with visual symptoms and a history of recent COVID-19 hospitalization and/or systemic corticosteroid use - even without other well-known risk factors.

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.

Sight-threatening intraocular infection in patients with COVID-19 in India.

PURPOSE: Intraocular infection in patients with COVID-19 could be different in the presence of treatment with systemic corticosteroid and immunosuppressive agents. We describe the epidemiology and microbiological profile of intraocular infection in COVID-19 patients after their release from the hospital. METHODS: We analyzed the clinical and microbiological data of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients from April 2020 to January 2021 presenting with features of endogenous endophthalmitis within 12 weeks of their discharge from the hospital in two neighboring states in South India. The data included demography, systemic comorbidities, COVID-19 treatment details, time interval to visual symptoms, the microbiology of systemic and ocular findings, ophthalmic management, and outcomes. RESULTS: The mean age of 24 patients (33 eyes) was 53.6 ± 13.5 (range: 5-72) years; 17 (70.83%) patients were male. Twenty-two (91.6%) patients had systemic comorbidities, and the median period of hospitalization for COVID-19 treatment was 14.5 ± 0.7 (range: 7-63) days. Infection was bilateral in nine patients. COVID-19 treatment included broad-spectrum systemic antibiotics (all), antiviral drugs (22, 91.66% of patients), systemic corticosteroid (21, 87.5% of patients), supplemental oxygen (18, 75% of patients), low molecular weight heparin (17, 70.8% of patients), admission in intensive care units (16, 66.6% of patients), and interleukin-6 inhibitor (tocilizumab) (14, 58.3% of patients). Five (20.8%) patients died of COVID-19-related complications during treatment for endophthalmitis; one eye progressed to pan ophthalmitis and orbital cellulitis; eight eyes regained vision >20/400. Fourteen of 19 (73.7%) vitreous biopsies were microbiologically positive (culture, PCR, and microscopy), and the majority (11 patients, 78.5%) were fungi. CONCLUSION: Intraocular infection in COVID-19 patients is predominantly caused by fungi. We suggest a routine eye examination be included as a standard of care of COVID-19.

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.

Comparison of post-cataract surgery endophthalmitis rates using syringing or regurgitation on pressure over the lacrimal sac as a preoperative screening tool for nasolacrimal duct obstruction: An impact assessment of protocol alteration due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Purpose: To compare the post-cataract endophthalmitis (PCE) rates among eyes undergoing syringing or regurgitation on pressure over the lacrimal sac (ROPLAS) test prior to cataract surgery. Methods: We performed a single-center, retrospective, comparative analysis of eyes developing PCE who underwent syringing prior to cataract surgery (group A) in the pre-COVID-19 era between November 1 2019 and January 31, 2020 and the eyes that underwent ROPLAS test prior to cataract surgery (group B) in the COVID-19 era between November 1, 2020 and January 31, 2021. Results: A total of 87,144 eyes underwent cataract surgery during the two time periods of the study. Syringing was performed in 48,071 eyes, whereas ROPLAS was performed in 39,073 eyes. In group A, 19 eyes (0.039%) developed PCE, whereas 20 eyes (0.051%) developed PCE in group B (P = 0.517). Between the two groups, the grade of anterior chamber cellular reaction (P = 0.675), hypopyon (P = 0.738), and vitreous haze (P = 0.664) were comparable. Gram-positive organisms were detected in 4 eyes in group A and 6 eyes in group B; 2 eyes in group A had gram-negative bacilli. The presenting visual acuity (Group A: LogMAR 1.42 and Group B: LogMAR 1.30) and final visual acuity (Group A: LogMAR 0.52 and Group B: LogMAR 0.5) were comparable between the two groups. (P = 0.544 and 0.384, respectively). Conclusion: The rates of PCE were comparable among the eyes undergoing either syringing test or ROPLAS prior to cataract surgery.

Endophthalmitis Rate in Immediately Sequential versus Delayed Sequential Bilateral Cataract Surgery within the Intelligent Research in Sight (IRIS®) Registry Data.

PURPOSE: To compare the rate of postoperative endophthalmitis after immediately sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS) versus delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery (DSBCS) using the American Academy of Ophthalmology Intelligent Research in Sight (IRIS®) Registry database. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients in the IRIS Registry who underwent cataract surgery from 2013 through 2018. METHODS: Patients who underwent cataract surgery were divided into 2 groups: (1) ISBCS and (2) DSBCS (second-eye surgery ≥1 day after the first-eye surgery) or unilateral surgery. Postoperative endophthalmitis was defined as endophthalmitis occurring within 4 weeks of surgery by International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code and ICD code with additional clinical criteria. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of postoperative endophthalmitis. RESULTS: Of 5 573 639 IRIS Registry patients who underwent cataract extraction, 165 609 underwent ISBCS, and 5 408 030 underwent DSBCS or unilateral surgery (3 695 440 DSBCS, 1 712 590 unilateral surgery only). A total of 3102 participants (0.056%) met study criteria of postoperative endophthalmitis with supporting clinical findings. The rates of endophthalmitis in either surgery eye between the 2 surgery groups were similar (0.059% in the ISBCS group vs. 0.056% in the DSBCS or unilateral group; P = 0.53). Although the incidence of endophthalmitis was slightly higher in the ISBCS group compared with the DSBCS or unilateral group, the odds ratio did not reach statistical significance (1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.31; P = 0.47) after adjusting for age, sex, race, insurance status, and comorbid eye disease. Seven cases of bilateral endophthalmitis with supporting clinical data in the DSBCS group and no cases in the ISBCS group were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Risk of postoperative endophthalmitis was not statistically significantly different between patients who underwent ISBCS and DSBCS or unilateral cataract surgery.

Susceptibility of severe COVID-19 patients to rhino-orbital mucormycosis fungal infection in different clinical manifestations.

PURPOSE: To present the different clinical manifestations of rhino-orbital mucormycosis (ROM) co-infection in severe COVID-19 patients. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective observational clinical study METHODS: Among 32,814 patients hospitalized with the diagnosis of COVID-19 between March 2020 and December 2020 in our center, eleven microbiologically confirmed ROM co-infection cases in severe COVID-19 patients were evaluated. RESULTS: There were nine men and two women with a mean age of 73.1 ± 7.7 years. Eight patients had uncontrolled type 2 diabetes with a mean diagnosis duration of 12.1 ± 4.4 years. All patients had COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome and received corticosteroids. The mean time interval between COVID-19 diagnosis and ROM diagnosis was 14.4 ± 4.3 days. Seven patients (63.6%) had orbital apex syndrome, and four patients (36.4%) presented with orbital cellulitis. Endophthalmitis was detected in 54.5% of patients, and two of these patients developed retinoschisis. CT scan/MRI revealed sino-orbital involvement in all patients, and three of these had cerebral involvement at initial presentation. All patients received intravenous and retrobulbar liposomal amphotericin B and had undergone radical debridement of involved sinuses. Intravitreal liposomal amphotericin B injected in patients with endophthalmitis. Despite all measures, 63.6% of patients expired. CONCLUSIONS: Severe COVID-19 is associated with a significant incidence of ROM with higher mortality rates due to immune dysregulation and the widespread use of steroids. Physicians should be aware of the possibility of this infection in patients with COVID-19. An aggressive multidisciplinary approach can help to reduce mortality.

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.

PATIENTS WEARING FACE MASKS DURING INTRAVITREAL INJECTIONS MAY BE AT A HIGHER RISK OF ENDOPHTHALMITIS.

PURPOSE: To investigate the safety of face masks worn by patients during intravitreal injections. METHODS: A prospective, qualitative, interventional study performed in a tertiary university hospital. Healthy volunteers were asked to wear three different professional surgical face masks while air leaks around the eyes were monitored. Three types of masks were investigated as follows: 1) surgical face mask with four tying strips, 2) surgical face mask with elastic ear loops and 3) 2200 N95 tuberculosis particulate face mask. For each session the periocular area was inspected for air leak during normal respiration, speech, and deep respiration. Detection of air leak was performed using the following two professional thermal cameras: FLIR A310-thermal camera and EyeCGas 2.0-super sensitive infrared camera used for detection of minute fugitive emissions of industrial gases. RESULTS: Ten healthy volunteers were enrolled in this study. The experiment was repeated 45 times for each camera; 3 times for each of 3 mask types, on 5 volunteers, for a total of 90 trials. Air jets were detected originating from the superior edges of the masks radiating toward the eyes in 81% (73/90) of cases in total; 71% (32/45) with the FLIR camera and 91% (41/45) with the OPGAL camera. Air leaks were detected with all investigated mask types. CONCLUSION: Patients wearing face masks during intravitreal injections may be at a higher risk of endophthalmitis. Until further data are available, we recommend verifying proper face mask fitting and either taping the upper edges of the face masks with a medical adhesive tape or using an adhesive surgical drape around the injected eye.