September 2016
Volume 57, Issue 12
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2016
Which Gram-Negative Antibiotic Complements Vancomycin for Broad-Spectrum Coverage of Endophthalmitis: Amikacin or Ceftazidime?
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Shilpa Kodati
    University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
  • Andrew W Eller
    University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
  • Regis P Kowalski
    University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Shilpa Kodati, None; Andrew Eller, None; Regis Kowalski, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  EY08098
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science September 2016, Vol.57, 4508. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Shilpa Kodati, Andrew W Eller, Regis P Kowalski; Which Gram-Negative Antibiotic Complements Vancomycin for Broad-Spectrum Coverage of Endophthalmitis: Amikacin or Ceftazidime?. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2016;57(12):4508.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Vancomycin (VAN) is established as first-line therapy in the treatment of Gram-positive (GP) bacterial endophthalmitis, while amikacin (AMK) or ceftazidime (CEF) are accepted for Gram-negative (GN) coverage. The in vitro susceptibility of GP and GN bacteria to VAN, AMK, and CEF were reviewed to evaluate the use of these antibiotics in the broad-spectrum treatment of bacterial endophthalmitis.

Methods : Bacteria isolated from endophthalmitis specimens collected from January 1st 1993 to December 31st 2013 were tested for in vitro susceptibility to VAN, AMK, and CEF using the Kirby Bauer disk diffusion method with serum breakpoint standard interpretations. Specimens were obtained from different combinations of anterior chamber, vitreous and vitrectomy samples.

Results : 1) 588 microbial isolates were identified. Coagulase negative Staphylococci (CoNS) were the most common bacteria (57.0%), followed by Streptococci (Strep) species (20.7%), Staphylococcus aureus (SA) (10.0%), GN bacteria (7.1%), and other Gram-positive (other-GP) bacteria (5.1%).
2) All GP organisms were susceptible to VAN, with the exception of 1 Lactobacillus isolate. 12.2% of GN were susceptible to VAN.
3) The in vitro susceptibility of bacteria to AMK were: CoNS (94.5%), SA (72.1%), Strep (7.4%), GN (90.2%), and other-GP (86.7%).
4) The in vitro susceptibility of bacteria to CEF were: CoNS (57%), SA (50.8%), Strep (82.3%), GN (88.1%), and other-GP (48.3%).
5) There was no difference between AMK (90.2%) and CEF (88.1%) for GN coverage.
6) AMK (94.5%, 72.1%, and 86.7%) provided better coverage than CEF (57%, 50.8%, and 48.3%) for CoNS, SA, and other-GP bacteria respectively (p<0.005, FE).
7) CEF (82.3%) appeared to provide better coverage (p<0.001, FE) for Strep than AMK (7.4%).

Conclusions : Based on in vitro studies, Vancomycin remains an optimal antibiotic choice for the treatment of Gram-positive endophthalmitis. AMK and CEF appear to provide equal GN coverage, but AMK provides better coverage for CoNS, SA, and other-GP, but not Strep. Despite the improved complementary coverage provided by AMK, retinal toxicity may be a concern.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2016 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Seattle, Wash., May 1-5, 2016.

×
×

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.

×