April 2014
Volume 55, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2014
The effect of a “no talking” policy during intravitreal injection on post-injection endophthalmitis
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Michael Dollin
    Retina, Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, PA
  • Philip Storey
    Retina, Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, PA
  • James F Vander
    Retina, Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, PA
  • Sunir Garg
    Retina, Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, PA
  • Jason Hsu
    Retina, Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, PA
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Michael Dollin, None; Philip Storey, None; James Vander, None; Sunir Garg, None; Jason Hsu, None
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2014, Vol.55, 587. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Michael Dollin, Philip Storey, James F Vander, Sunir Garg, Jason Hsu; The effect of a “no talking” policy during intravitreal injection on post-injection endophthalmitis. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2014;55(13):587.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: To report the first “real-world” experience with a “no talking” policy during intravitreal injection (IVI) and its effect on post-injection endophthalmitis.

Methods: Retrospective, comparative case series of all patients diagnosed with endophthalmitis following IVI of an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agent between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2012. A 24-month period when a “no talking” policy was implemented during IVI was compared to the previous 24-month period without a “no talking” policy.

Results: During the study period, a total of 126,587 IVI were performed (47,773 prior to the “no talking” period and 78,814 during the “no talking” period) with a total of 48 cases of endophthalmitis (0.038%; 1 in 2,637 injections), 17 of which were culture-positive (0.013%; 1 in 7,446 injections). During the 24-month period prior to the “no talking” policy, there were 27 cases of endophthalmitis (0.057%; 1 in 1,769 injections), 9 of which were culture-positive (0.019%; 1 in 5,308 injections). During the 24-month “no talking” period, there were 21 cases of endophthalmitis (0.027%; 1 in 3,753 injections), 8 of which were culture-positive (0.010%; 1 in 9,852 injections). Among culture-positive cases, oral pathogens were seen in greater frequency prior to the “no talking” period. The “no talking” policy during IVI was associated with decreased risk of endophthalmitis (odds ratio [OR] 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.27 to 0.83, p=0.01), culture-positive endophthalmitis (OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.21 to 1.40, p=0.20), and oral pathogen-associated endophthalmitis (OR 0.17; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.83, p=0.03).

Conclusions: Implementation of a “no talking” policy during IVI appears to be effective in helping reduce the risk of post-injection endophthalmitis, including oral pathogen-associated cases.

Keywords: 513 endophthalmitis • 561 injection  
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×