June 2015
Volume 56, Issue 7
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2015
Evaluation of Endophthalmitis in Patients with Candidemia
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Jill Zaveri
    Ophthalmology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL
  • Joseph A Santamaria
    Ophthalmology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL
  • Jack A Cohen
    Ophthalmology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL
  • Kamaljit Singh
    Infectious Disease, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Jill Zaveri, None; Joseph Santamaria, None; Jack Cohen, None; Kamaljit Singh, None
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2015, Vol.56, 4170. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Jill Zaveri, Joseph A Santamaria, Jack A Cohen, Kamaljit Singh; Evaluation of Endophthalmitis in Patients with Candidemia. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2015;56(7 ):4170.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Purpose: The Infectious Disease Society of America recommends a dilated fundus examination to screen for ocular candidiasis in all patients with candidemia. Our aim was to establish the incidence of candida endophthalmitis or chorioretinitis diagnosed via ophthalmology consultation in our institution. Further review also elucidated which patients had evidence of acute ocular symptoms, the ability to verbalize symptoms, the type of systemic antifungal treatment at the time of consultation, and the species of candida being treated.

Methods: All inpatients with candidemia confirmed by positive blood or catheter culture from June 2011 to June 2013 were retrospectively reviewed to reveal those that required an ophthalmology consultation to screen for ocular candidasis via dilated fundus examination.

Results: Candidemia was confirmed by blood or catheter cultures in 110 patients. Cultures were positive for C. albicans in 49 patients (44.5%), C. tropicalis in 9 patients (8.2%), C. parapsilosis in 17 patients (15%), C. glabrata in 24 patients (15.4%), C. krusei in 1 patient (1%), C. kefyr in 1 patient (1%), and C. lusitaniae in 1 patient (1%). The remaining 8 patients had cultures positive for multiple Candida species (7.2%). An opthalmology consult was obtained for 76 patients. One patient received 2 consults for the growth of different Candida species on different dates, resulting in 77 total ophthalmology consults. All 77 patients were receiving systemic fluconazole or caspofungin at the time of examination. During exam, 56 patients (73%) were able to verbalize if they had acute visual symptoms. None had acute visual symptoms in this review. The remaining 21 patients were unable to communicate effectively due to intubation or altered mental status. Of the 77 consultations for the evaluation of ocular candidiasis, zero patients had candida endophthalmitis or chorioretinitis (0%).

Conclusions: The current incidence of ocular involvement of patients with candidemia is rare. A systematic approach for consultation in patients with candidemia is necessary. Due to the decreasing incidence of candida endophthalmitis, a prospective study is unlikely to reveal statistically significant risk factors for ocular involvement in these patients. Instead, a retrospective review of patients with endogenous candida endophthalmitis is needed to elucidate risk factors which would aid in creating guidelines for ophthalmology consultation in patients with candidemia.


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.