June 2021
Volume 62, Issue 8
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2021
The Impact of Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) on Management in Infectious Uveitis
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Stephanie Marie Llop Santiago
    Ophthalmology, University of Miami Health System Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, Miami, Florida, United States
  • Julia Fallon
    Ophthalmology, New York Eye and Ear Infirmary of Mount Sinai Ophthalmology, New York, New York, United States
  • Jun Lin
    Ophthalmology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Stephanie Llop Santiago, None; Julia Fallon, None; Jun Lin, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2021, Vol.62, 3471. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Stephanie Marie Llop Santiago, Julia Fallon, Jun Lin; The Impact of Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) on Management in Infectious Uveitis. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2021;62(8):3471.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : To evaluate the impact of PCR sampling on diagnosis and treatment of infectious uveitidies at a large tertiary care facility

Methods : This is a retrospective chart review of patients with at least one PCR sample performed from 2014-2019 at New York Eye and Ear Infirmary of Mount Sinai. At least one follow up visit following results of PCR testing was required for inclusion. If a patient had multiple PCR samples taken, only the first sample was included. The samples were divided into three categories based on pre-PCR diagnosis: those where pre-sampling diagnosis was presumed not infectious (group 1), those where pre-sampling diagnosis was presumed infectious (group 2) and those where pre-sampling diagnosis was concerning for infection but still unknown (group 3).

Results : 108 cases were available for analysis in the study. 25 of the 108 samples yielded a positive PCR result (23%). Majority of patients fell into group 3 where diagnosis was unknown (56%). Presumed infectious and noninfectious cases made up 22% of the population each. Table 1 summarizes treatment and diagnostic changes made in response to PCR sampling results. A chi square analysis was performed. The results of PCR testing had a more significant impact on diagnosis in those cases where pre-sampling diagnosis was unknown versus those where it was presumed infectious or presumed noninfectious (77% vs. 21%; 77% vs. 13%, p<0.0001). In cases where the presumed diagnosis was infectious, the rate of diagnosis change was similar to those where the diagnosis was presumed noninfectious (21% vs. 13%, p>0.05). Similarly, treatment changes were made based on PCR results more frequently in cases where the diagnosis was unknown compared to when an infectious entity is presumed (38% vs. 25%, p<0.0001). There were no cases where treatment was changed in relation to PCR when a noninfectious entity was the pre-sampling diagnosis.

Conclusions : In our experience, PCR sampling is undertaken in various clinical scenarios, including when an infectious entity is not suspected, when an infectious entity is suspected, and when diagnosis is unknown. As expected, it has the greatest impact on diagnosis and treatment when the clinical diagnosis is unknown. When PCR sampling is confirmatory in nature, it has a minimal impact on diagnosis and treatment, especially when compared to unknown cases.

This is a 2021 ARVO Annual Meeting abstract.

×
×

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.

×