ABSTRACT
It is the consensus of the medical community that ocular complications associated with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) are mild, self-limiting, and there are no reports to date of a sight-threatening event. We report a patient with a systemic inflammatory syndrome in the context of COVID-19, with ophthalmological (uveitis), dermatological (erythema and skin nodules), and cardiovascular (edema) manifestations. The anterior uveitis led to an increase in the intraocular pressure that failed to respond to clinical treatment and prompted a surgical intervention to save the vision. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of a COVID-19-related ocular hypertension. Timely surgical intervention was key to save the vision in the patient's only eye.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Intraocular Pressure/physiology , Ocular Hypertension/etiology , Uveitis, Anterior/complications , Acute Disease , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Ocular Hypertension/physiopathology , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Tonometry, OcularABSTRACT
PRECIS: Designing and demonstrating an experiment that shows the risk of airborne transmission of COVID-19 between patients having visual fields analyzed is low. PURPOSE: The aim was to investigate the possibility of airborne transmission of COVID-19 during Humphrey visual field testing in a real-world scenario. METHODS: A particle counter was placed within the bowl of Humphrey visual field analyzer (HFA) before and after turning on the machine to ascertain the effect of the air current produced by the ventilation system on aerosols. A second experiment was run where the particle counter was placed in the bowl and recorded particulates, in the air, as a 24-2 SITA standard was performed by a mock patient and then again immediately after the patient had moved away. We measured aerosol particle counts sized ≤0.3 µm, >0.3≤0.5 µm, >0.5≤1 µm, >1≤2.5 µm, >2.5≤5 µm, and >5≤10 µm. RESULTS: Particulates of all sizes were shown to be significantly reduced within the bowl after turning the machine on, demonstrating that the air current produced by the HFA pushes air out of the bowl and it cannot stagnate. There was no significant difference in measurement of aerosol while there was a patient performing the test and immediately after they had moved away, suggesting that aerosols breathed out by the patient are not able to remain in suspension in the bowl because of the ventilation current. CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference between aerosol count in the bowl of a HFA before, during and after testing. This suggests the risk of airborne transmission of COVID-19 is low between subsequent patients. This is in keeping with manufacturer's guidance on Humphrey visual field testing.
Subject(s)
Aerosols/adverse effects , COVID-19/transmission , Disease Transmission, Infectious/prevention & control , Ocular Hypertension/diagnosis , Visual Field Tests/methods , Visual Fields/physiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Comorbidity , Humans , Intraocular Pressure/physiology , Ocular Hypertension/epidemiology , Ocular Hypertension/physiopathology , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has changed how outpatient care is delivered in ophthalmology clinics, particularly with glaucoma care. This case series highlights the need for awareness of fogging and improper face mask fit as causes of standard automated perimetry artifacts in patients with ocular hypertension and glaucoma. CLINICAL PRESENTATIONS: Six patients with the diagnosis of ocular hypertension, glaucoma suspect, or glaucoma underwent standard automated perimetry (24-2 or 10-2 SITA, Humphrey Field Analyzer) while wearing ear-loop surgical face masks. Due to patient complaints of fogging during the testing, low test reliability, and unexpected results, the tests were repeated after taping securely the mask to the bridge of the nose. CLINICAL FINDINGS: Fogging may reduce visual field (VF) test reliability and induce artifacts that mimic glaucomatous defects. VF test reliability can be improved and artifacts minimized following mask taping. In 1 case there was worsening of VF defects after mask taping. This suggests that fogging may also disguise true VF defects. CONCLUSIONS: Fogging can result in unreliable VF testing with glaucoma-like artifacts. Secure taping of the face mask to the nose bridge may minimize this problem and reduce unnecessary additional testing and follow-up visits.
Subject(s)
Artifacts , COVID-19/prevention & control , Glaucoma, Open-Angle/diagnosis , Optic Nerve Diseases/diagnosis , Respiratory Protective Devices/adverse effects , SARS-CoV-2 , Visual Fields/physiology , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Algorithms , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Glaucoma, Open-Angle/physiopathology , Humans , Intraocular Pressure/physiology , Male , Middle Aged , Ocular Hypertension/diagnosis , Ocular Hypertension/physiopathology , Optic Nerve Diseases/physiopathology , Pandemics , Reproducibility of Results , Visual Field TestsABSTRACT
Ophthalmological examination requires a strict contact between caregivers and patients. In the COVID-19 era, this may be a risk factor for virus spread, and the use of facial masks for all in-office ophthalmological procedures has been recommended. In this case-series, we report about some errors in intraocular pressure measurement, that may occur during the slit-lamp examination of patients wearing filtering facepiece masks and N95 respirators. This is mainly due to the greater dimensions of these masks in comparison with the surgical standard ones, and to the presence of a preshaped rigid nose area that may press against the Goldmann tonometer. Special care should be taken when measuring intraocular pressure in these cases.