Ajay E Kuriyan1, Jayanth Sridhar2, Harry W Flynn2, William E Smiddy2, Thomas A Albini2, Audina M Berrocal2, Richard K Forster2, Peter J Belin3, Darlene Miller2. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, Florida. Electronic address: ajay.kuriyan@gmail.com. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, Florida. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, Florida; Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Florida International University, Miami, Florida.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report the clinical features, antibiotic sensitivities, and visual acuity outcomes of endophthalmitis caused by Enterococcus faecalis. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective, observational case series. METHODS: A consecutive case series of patients with culture-positive endophthalmitis caused by E. faecalis between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2012, at an academic referral center. RESULTS: Of 14 patients identified, clinical settings included bleb association (n = 8), occurrence after cataract surgery (n = 4), and occurrence after penetrating keratoplasty (n = 2). All isolates were vancomycin sensitive. When comparing isolates in the current study with isolates from 1990 through 2001, the minimal inhibitory concentration required to inhibit 90% of isolates increased for ciprofloxacin (4 μg/mL from 1 μg/mL), erythromycin (256 μg/mL from 4 μg/mL), and penicillin (8 μg/mL from 4 μg/mL), indicating higher levels of resistance. The minimal inhibitory concentration required to inhibit 90% of isolates remained the same for vancomycin (2 μg/mL) and linezolid (2 μg/mL). Presenting visual acuity ranged from hand movements to no light perception. Initial treatment strategies were vitreous tap and intravitreal antibiotic injection (n = 12) and pars plana vitrectomy with intravitreal antibiotic injection (n = 2). Visual acuity outcomes were 20/400 or worse in 13 (93%) of 14 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although all isolates were sensitive to vancomycin and linezolid, higher minimal inhibitory concentration required to inhibit 90% of isolates in the current study, compared with isolates from 1990 through 2001, occurred with ciprofloxacin, erythromycin, and penicillin. Despite prompt treatment, most patients had poor outcomes.
PURPOSE: To report the clinical features, antibiotic sensitivities, and visual acuity outcomes of endophthalmitis caused by Enterococcus faecalis. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective, observational case series. METHODS: A consecutive case series of patients with culture-positive endophthalmitis caused by E. faecalis between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2012, at an academic referral center. RESULTS: Of 14 patients identified, clinical settings included bleb association (n = 8), occurrence after cataract surgery (n = 4), and occurrence after penetrating keratoplasty (n = 2). All isolates were vancomycin sensitive. When comparing isolates in the current study with isolates from 1990 through 2001, the minimal inhibitory concentration required to inhibit 90% of isolates increased for ciprofloxacin (4 μg/mL from 1 μg/mL), erythromycin (256 μg/mL from 4 μg/mL), and penicillin (8 μg/mL from 4 μg/mL), indicating higher levels of resistance. The minimal inhibitory concentration required to inhibit 90% of isolates remained the same for vancomycin (2 μg/mL) and linezolid (2 μg/mL). Presenting visual acuity ranged from hand movements to no light perception. Initial treatment strategies were vitreous tap and intravitreal antibiotic injection (n = 12) and pars plana vitrectomy with intravitreal antibiotic injection (n = 2). Visual acuity outcomes were 20/400 or worse in 13 (93%) of 14 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although all isolates were sensitive to vancomycin and linezolid, higher minimal inhibitory concentration required to inhibit 90% of isolates in the current study, compared with isolates from 1990 through 2001, occurred with ciprofloxacin, erythromycin, and penicillin. Despite prompt treatment, most patients had poor outcomes.
Authors: Geeta A Lalwani; Harry W Flynn; Ingrid U Scott; Carolyn M Quinn; Audina M Berrocal; Janet L Davis; Timothy G Murray; William E Smiddy; Darlene Miller Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2007-12-11 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: George Sakoulas; Pamela A Moise-Broder; Jerome Schentag; Alan Forrest; Robert C Moellering; George M Eliopoulos Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Geraldine R Slean; Neal H Shorstein; Liyan Liu; John F Paschal; Kevin L Winthrop; Lisa J Herrinton Journal: Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 4.207
Authors: Roger A Astley; Phillip S Coburn; Salai Madhumathi Parkunan; Michelle C Callegan Journal: Prog Retin Eye Res Date: 2016-05-03 Impact factor: 21.198
Authors: Yu Ti Teng; Mei Ching Teng; Hsi Kung Kuo; Po Chiung Fang; Pei Chang Wu; Chih Hsin Chen; Ming Tse Kuo; I Hui Yang; Yung Jen Chen Journal: Int Ophthalmol Date: 2016-07-15 Impact factor: 2.031
Authors: Ki Yup Nam; Hyun Wong Kim; Woo Jin Jeung; Jung Min Park; Jong Moon Park; In Young Chung; Yong Seop Han; Bu Sup Oum; Ji Eun Lee; Ik Soo Byon; Il Han Yun; Joo Eun Lee; Hee Sung Yoon; Dong Park; Byeng Chul Yu; Sang Joon Lee Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2016-11-25 Impact factor: 3.090