Comparison of clinico-microbiological profile and treatment outcome of in-house and referred post cataract surgery endophthalmitis in a tertiary care center in South India.

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the study is to compare the clinico-microbiological profile and treatment outcome of in-house vs referred cases of post cataract surgery endophthalmitis in a tertiary eye care facility in South India.

METHODS

The clinical records of 50 culture-positive cases each of in-house (group A) and referred (group B) post cataract surgery endophthalmitis were analyzed. The management protocol was similar in both groups.

RESULTS

The time to report to the institute was longer in group B (group B 13.63 [±11.67; 95% CI, 9.95-17.31] days; group A 6.83 [±7.61; 95% CI, 4.57-9.09] days; P = 0.002). The average inflammatory scores in presentation were comparable (group A 17.85 ± 5.83; group B 18.18 ± 7.35; P = 0.243). The final visual outcome was clinically superior in group A (≥20/200-group A 60.42% and group B 44%, P = 0.11; ≤20/400-group A 37.5% and group B 52%, P = 0.62), but statistically not significant. There were more gram-positive organisms in group A (62% vs 38%; P = 0.027) and more gram-negative organisms in group B (52% vs 24%; P = 0.007). Gram-positive bacteria were mostly sensitive to vancomycin (95.24% to 96.67%), but gram-negative bacteria were partly sensitive to ceftazidime (58.33% to 64%).

CONCLUSIONS

One could suspect gram-negative infection more often in the referred cases of endophthalmitis. While vancomycin could continue to be the antibiotic of choice in gram-positive bacteria, specific antibiotic following due sensitivity for gram-negative bacteria should replace the empiric use of ceftazidime.