在一个单一的三级学术中心,现实世界中的通用面部遮蔽对玻璃体注射后眼底病的发生率没有影响。

IF 2.3 2区 医学 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY Retina-The Journal of Retinal and Vitreous Diseases Pub Date : 2024-05-01 DOI:10.1097/IAE.0000000000004043
Rachana Haliyur, Alina K Sinha, Chris A Andrews, David C Musch, Christopher D Conrady, David N Zacks, Michael J Huvard
{"title":"在一个单一的三级学术中心,现实世界中的通用面部遮蔽对玻璃体注射后眼底病的发生率没有影响。","authors":"Rachana Haliyur, Alina K Sinha, Chris A Andrews, David C Musch, Christopher D Conrady, David N Zacks, Michael J Huvard","doi":"10.1097/IAE.0000000000004043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To determine whether universal masking during COVID-19 altered rate and outcomes of postinjection endophthalmitis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective, single-site, comparative, cohort study. Eyes diagnosed with endophthalmitis within 4 weeks of intravitreal injection at the University of Michigan from August 1, 2012, to November 15, 2022, were identified. Cases were considered \"masking\" between March 15, 2020, and November 15, 2022. Endophthalmitis rate, visual acuity, and microbial spectrum were investigated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 20 postinjection endophthalmitis cases out of 72,194 injections (0.028%; one in 3,571 injections) premasking and 10 of 38,962 with universal masking (0.026%; one in 3,846 injections; odds ratio 0.9; 95% [confidence interval]: 0.4-2.0). Referral from the community was unchanged with 32 cases referred premasking (0.35 cases/month) and 10 cases with masking (0.31 cases/month). Presenting mean the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution visual acuity with masking of all postinjection endophthalmitis cases trended worse (2.35 ± 0.40) compared with premasking (2.09 ± 0.48; P = 0.05) with light perception visual acuity more common with masking (31.6% vs. 10.9%, P = 0.06). There was no delay in time from procedure to initial treatment ( P = 0.36), no difference in the rate of initial treatment with tap and inject (T/I), and similar positive-culture rates ( P = 0.77) between the cohorts. Visual acuity after 30 days of follow-up was clinically unchanged (∼20/500 vs. 20/400; P = 0.59).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Universal masking had no effect on postinjection endophthalmitis rate or on the rate of culture-positive cases. Although presenting visual acuity appeared worse with masking, this was not statistically significant, and current treatment paradigms resulted in similar visual outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":54486,"journal":{"name":"Retina-The Journal of Retinal and Vitreous Diseases","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"NO EFFECT OF REAL-WORLD UNIVERSAL FACE MASKING ON POST-INTRAVITREAL INJECTION ENDOPHTHALMITIS RATE AT A SINGLE TERTIARY ACADEMIC CENTER.\",\"authors\":\"Rachana Haliyur, Alina K Sinha, Chris A Andrews, David C Musch, Christopher D Conrady, David N Zacks, Michael J Huvard\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/IAE.0000000000004043\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To determine whether universal masking during COVID-19 altered rate and outcomes of postinjection endophthalmitis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective, single-site, comparative, cohort study. Eyes diagnosed with endophthalmitis within 4 weeks of intravitreal injection at the University of Michigan from August 1, 2012, to November 15, 2022, were identified. Cases were considered \\\"masking\\\" between March 15, 2020, and November 15, 2022. Endophthalmitis rate, visual acuity, and microbial spectrum were investigated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 20 postinjection endophthalmitis cases out of 72,194 injections (0.028%; one in 3,571 injections) premasking and 10 of 38,962 with universal masking (0.026%; one in 3,846 injections; odds ratio 0.9; 95% [confidence interval]: 0.4-2.0). Referral from the community was unchanged with 32 cases referred premasking (0.35 cases/month) and 10 cases with masking (0.31 cases/month). Presenting mean the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution visual acuity with masking of all postinjection endophthalmitis cases trended worse (2.35 ± 0.40) compared with premasking (2.09 ± 0.48; P = 0.05) with light perception visual acuity more common with masking (31.6% vs. 10.9%, P = 0.06). There was no delay in time from procedure to initial treatment ( P = 0.36), no difference in the rate of initial treatment with tap and inject (T/I), and similar positive-culture rates ( P = 0.77) between the cohorts. Visual acuity after 30 days of follow-up was clinically unchanged (∼20/500 vs. 20/400; P = 0.59).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Universal masking had no effect on postinjection endophthalmitis rate or on the rate of culture-positive cases. Although presenting visual acuity appeared worse with masking, this was not statistically significant, and current treatment paradigms resulted in similar visual outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54486,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Retina-The Journal of Retinal and Vitreous Diseases\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Retina-The Journal of Retinal and Vitreous Diseases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0000000000004043\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Retina-The Journal of Retinal and Vitreous Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0000000000004043","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:确定 COVID-19 期间的通用遮盖是否会改变注射后眼内炎 (PIE) 的发生率和结果:方法:回顾性、单站、比较队列研究。对密歇根大学 2012 年 8 月 1 日至 2022 年 11 月 15 日期间在玻璃体内注射后 4 周内确诊患有眼内炎的眼球进行鉴定。2020年3月15日至2022年11月15日期间的病例被视为 "掩盖 "病例。对眼内炎发生率、视力(VA)和微生物谱进行了调查:掩蔽前,72,194 次注射中有 20 例 PIE(0.028%;每 3571 次注射中有 1 例),普遍掩蔽后,38,962 次注射中有 10 例 PIE(0.026%;每 3846 次注射中有 1 例)(OR 0.9;95% [CI]:0.4-2.0)。来自社区的转诊情况保持不变,掩蔽前转诊 32 例(0.35 例/月),掩蔽后转诊 10 例(0.31 例/月)。与遮盖前(2.09±0.48)相比(P=0.05),所有 PIE 病例在遮盖后的平均 VA 值对数呈下降趋势(2.35±0.40),遮盖后的光感 VA 值更常见(31.6% 对 10.9%,P=0.06)。从手术到初始治疗的时间没有延迟(P=0.36),采用拍打和注射(T/I)初始治疗的比率没有差异,各组间的阳性培养率相似(P=0.77)。随访 30 天后的视力无变化(20/500 vs 20/400)(P=0.59):结论:普遍掩蔽对 PIE 率和培养阳性病例率没有影响。结论:普遍遮盖对 PIE 率和培养阳性病例率没有影响。虽然遮盖后患者的视力会变差,但这并不具有统计学意义,目前的治疗模式也能带来相似的视力结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
NO EFFECT OF REAL-WORLD UNIVERSAL FACE MASKING ON POST-INTRAVITREAL INJECTION ENDOPHTHALMITIS RATE AT A SINGLE TERTIARY ACADEMIC CENTER.

Purpose: To determine whether universal masking during COVID-19 altered rate and outcomes of postinjection endophthalmitis.

Methods: Retrospective, single-site, comparative, cohort study. Eyes diagnosed with endophthalmitis within 4 weeks of intravitreal injection at the University of Michigan from August 1, 2012, to November 15, 2022, were identified. Cases were considered "masking" between March 15, 2020, and November 15, 2022. Endophthalmitis rate, visual acuity, and microbial spectrum were investigated.

Results: There were 20 postinjection endophthalmitis cases out of 72,194 injections (0.028%; one in 3,571 injections) premasking and 10 of 38,962 with universal masking (0.026%; one in 3,846 injections; odds ratio 0.9; 95% [confidence interval]: 0.4-2.0). Referral from the community was unchanged with 32 cases referred premasking (0.35 cases/month) and 10 cases with masking (0.31 cases/month). Presenting mean the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution visual acuity with masking of all postinjection endophthalmitis cases trended worse (2.35 ± 0.40) compared with premasking (2.09 ± 0.48; P = 0.05) with light perception visual acuity more common with masking (31.6% vs. 10.9%, P = 0.06). There was no delay in time from procedure to initial treatment ( P = 0.36), no difference in the rate of initial treatment with tap and inject (T/I), and similar positive-culture rates ( P = 0.77) between the cohorts. Visual acuity after 30 days of follow-up was clinically unchanged (∼20/500 vs. 20/400; P = 0.59).

Conclusion: Universal masking had no effect on postinjection endophthalmitis rate or on the rate of culture-positive cases. Although presenting visual acuity appeared worse with masking, this was not statistically significant, and current treatment paradigms resulted in similar visual outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
9.10%
发文量
554
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: ​RETINA® focuses exclusively on the growing specialty of vitreoretinal disorders. The Journal provides current information on diagnostic and therapeutic techniques. Its highly specialized and informative, peer-reviewed articles are easily applicable to clinical practice. In addition to regular reports from clinical and basic science investigators, RETINA® publishes special features including periodic review articles on pertinent topics, special articles dealing with surgical and other therapeutic techniques, and abstract cards. Issues are abundantly illustrated in vivid full color. Published 12 times per year, RETINA® is truly a “must have” publication for anyone connected to this field.
期刊最新文献
Purtscher-Like Retinopathy and Acute Macular Neuroretinopathy in a Child with Acute Influenza A. Correspondence. ACUTE POSTERIOR MULTIFOCAL PLACOID PIGMENT EPITHELIOPATHY AND PLACOID VARIANT DISEASES MASQUERADING AS AGE-RELATED MACULAR DEGENERATION IN THE ELDERLY: A Case Series. Correspondence. Reply.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1