Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Journal of Ophthalmic Inflammation and Infection 1/2018

Open Access 01.12.2018 | Original research

Endogenous endophthalmitis: a 9-year retrospective study at a tertiary referral hospital in Malaysia

verfasst von: Rosiah Muda, Valarmathy Vayavari, Deivanai Subbiah, Hamisah Ishak, Azian Adnan, Shelina Oli Mohamed

Erschienen in: Journal of Ophthalmic Inflammation and Infection | Ausgabe 1/2018

Abstract

Background

The objective of this study was to determine the clinical presentation, systemic risk factors, source of infective microorganism, treatment outcomes, and prognostic indicators of endogenous endophthalmitis at a main tertiary referral hospital for uveitis in Malaysia. A retrospective review of medical records of 120 patients (143 eyes) with endogenous endophthalmitis over a period of 9 years between January 2007 and December 2015 was undertaken.

Results

Identifiable systemic risk factors were present in 79.2%, with the majority related to diabetes mellitus (60.0%). The most common source of bacteremia was urinary tract infection (17.5%). A positive culture from ocular fluid or other body fluids was obtained in 82 patients (68.9%), and the blood was the highest source among all culture-positive results (42.0%). Gram-negative organisms accounted 42 cases (50.6%) of which Klebsiella pneumonia was the most common organism isolated (32.5%). Sixty-nine eyes (48.6%) were managed medically, and 73 eyes (51.4%) underwent vitrectomy. Final visual acuity of counting fingers (CF) or better was achieved in 100 eyes (73.0%). Presenting visual acuity of CF or better was significantly associated with a better final acuity of CF or better (p = 0.001).

Conclusions

The visual prognosis of endogenous endophthalmitis is often poor, leading to blindness. As expected, gram-negative organisms specifically Klebsiella pneumonia were the most common organisms isolated. Urinary tract infection was the main source of infection. Poor presenting visual acuity was significantly associated with grave visual outcomes. A high index of suspicion, early diagnosis, and treatment are crucial to salvage useful vision.
Abkürzungen
AGE
Acute gastroenteritis
CF
Counting fingers
EE
Endogenous Endophthalmitis
MRSA
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
PCR
Polymerase chain reaction

Background

Endogenous endophthalmitis (EE) occurs when infectious agents are hematogenously disseminated into the eye from a remote focus of infection. Even though this entity is relatively rare and accounts for approximately 2–15% of all cases of endophthalmitis [13], it is an ocular emergency and is potentially life-threatening. The causative organisms may vary depending on the geographical location. In Europe and the USA, Streptococcus species, Staphylococcus aureus, and other gram-positive bacteria account for two thirds of bacterial endogenous endophthalmitis cases and gram-negative isolates are found in only 32% of cases [3, 4]. In contrast, most cases of EE in East Asia are caused by gram-negative organisms especially Klebsiella species accounting for 80 to 90% of positive cultures [4, 5].
The outcome of endogenous endophthalmitis is often dismal. Sharma et al. reported that 60% of the eyes had a final visual acuity of hand motions or worse and as many as 29% required removals [6]. Hence, prompt diagnosis and management are essential if useful vision is to be preserved.
To the best of our knowledge, there is no large case series on endogenous endophthalmitis being reported yet from Malaysia. The current study was performed to determine the clinical profile of EE at a tertiary hospital while focusing on the clinical presentation, predisposing risk factors, source of infective microorganism, treatment outcomes and prognostic indicators.

Methods

A retrospective observational study was conducted in Selayang Hospital which was the main national tertiary referral center for uveitis in Malaysia. We reviewed the medical records of patients with endogenous endophthalmitis who were seen or referred to our hospital over a period of 9 years between January 2007 and December 2015. The diagnosis of endogenous endophthalmitis was defined as the presence of iritis and vitritis on ophthalmic examination and one or more of the following: (1) constitutional symptoms and systemic infection; (2) positive cultures of vitreous, blood, or other body fluids; (3) presence of loculation, vitreous debris, or membranous debris on ultrasound; (4) lack of ocular trauma or ocular surgery within 1 year from onset of infection or evidence of primary external ocular infection such as infectious keratitis or filtering bleb infection.
Demographic details such as age, gender and race, presenting complaints, preexisting medical illnesses, predisposing risk factors, source of infection, laterality, visual acuity, ophthalmologic examination, ultrasound findings, microbiologic profiles, treatment modalities, and final visual outcomes were collected from medical records.
The study was done according to Malaysian Good Clinical Practice (MGCP) 2nd edition January 2004 and registered in National Medical Research Register (NMRR).
Data was analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 22.0. Descriptive data was expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) for numerical data, and categorical variables were presented in frequencies and percentages. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine the factors associated with good visual outcomes. The association between presenting and final visual acuity was also analyzed using the Pearson correlation coefficient, and visual acuities were converted to logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution (logMAR) scale. For visual acuity less than counting finger (CF), the following scales were used: CF = 2.00 LogMAR units, hand motion = 2.30 LogMAR units, light perception = 2.60 LogMAR units, and no light perception = 2.90 LogMAR units. A P value of < 0.05 was considered to be significant.

Results

Demographic data

A total of 143 eyes of 120 patients were included in this study. The age of patients ranged from 7 to 81 years, and the mean age at presentation was 52.6 ± 15.1 years. The racial distribution reflected the multiracial population in our country with 72 Malays (60.0%), 33 Chinese (27.5%), 13 Indian (10.8%), and 2 others (1.7%). There was a slight female predominance (61, 50.8%) compared to males (59, 49.2%).

Systemic features

Systemic risk factors

At least one underlying medical illness was identified in 95 patients (79.2%). Diabetes mellitus was the most common medical illness (72, 60.0%), followed by renal failure (20, 16.7%), and 15 patients (12.5%) had solid organ tumor or hematologic malignancy. Six patients (5.0%) had liver disease and 3 patients (2.5%) were pregnant. Five patients (4.2%) were on systemic corticosteroids for underlying autoimmune diseases, and 1 was on systemic immunosuppressants.

Source of infection

A primary source of infection was identified in 90 patients (75.0%). Urinary tract infection (21, 17.5%) was the most common source of bacteremia followed by pulmonary infection (19, 15.8%), skin or soft tissue infection (17, 14.2%), and hepatobiliary infection (12, 10.0%). However, the source of infection could not be identified in 30 patients (25.0%), despite extensive systemic work-up and investigations (Table 1).
Table 1
Identifiable source of infection
Source of infection
No. of patients
Percent
Infected catheter
11
9.2
Urinary tract infection
21
17.5
Hepatobiliary infection
12
10.0
Lung infection
19
15.8
Meningitis
2
1.7
Infective endocarditis
1
0.8
Gastrointestinal infection
1
0.8
Genital infection
2
1.7
Skin or soft tissue infection
17
14.2
Septic arthritis
1
0.8
Diabetic foot ulcer
3
2.5
Nil
30
25.0

Ocular features

Ocular symptoms
Majority of patients had unilateral disease, 97 (80.8%), and involvement of the left eye (78, 54.5%) was more common. Blurring of vision (106, 74.1%), eye redness (52, 36.4%), eye pain or discomfort (42, 29.4%), and floaters (16, 11.2%) were ocular symptoms at presentation. The blurring of vision (85, 68.5%) was the most common presenting complaint, followed by eye redness (20, 16.1%) and eye pain or discomfort (14, 11.3%).
The interval between the onset of ocular symptoms and the first presentation to an ophthalmologist was less than 1 week in 62 eyes (47.3%), 1 to 2 weeks in 40 eyes (30.5%), more than 2 weeks to 1 month in 10 eyes (14.5%), and more than 1 month in 10 eyes (7.6%). The interval was not available in 12 eyes which were from patients with no recorded ocular symptoms due to poor general medical condition or no documentation obtained from the medical records (Fig. 1).
Systemic symptoms were identified in 84 patients (70.0%). This data was not available in 36 patients (30.0%). The interval between the onset of systemic symptoms and the onset of ocular symptoms was identified in 101 eyes. The interval was less than 1 week in 26 eyes (25.7%), between 1 and 2 weeks in 25 eyes (24.8%), more than 2 weeks to 1 month in 12 eyes (11.9%), and more than 1 month in 38 eyes (37.6%) (Fig. 1).
Ocular findings
At presentation, based on the Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature (SUN), the proportion of the eyes with anterior chamber cells better than grade 3 and grade 3 or worse was similar with 67 eyes (49.6%) and 68 eyes (50.4%) respectively. Twenty-seven eyes (19.0%) had hypopyon, and 42 eyes (29.6%) had fibrin. The fundal view was present in 64 out of 143 eyes (44.8%). Among this, 32 eyes (50.0%) had choroiditis or choroidal abscess, 11 eyes (17.2%) had retinitis, 6 (9.4%) had vasculitis, and 4 (6.3%) had optic disc swelling. Six eyes had a combination of choroiditis or choroidal abscess and retinitis and 2 eyes had choroiditis or choroidal abscess, vasculitis, and optic disc swelling.
Ultrasound findings were documented in 97 eyes. Fifty-five eyes (56.7%) had vitreous loculation, whereas subretinal or vitreous abscess and retinal detachment were found in 6 (6.2%) and 8 (8.2%) eyes respectively.

Microbiology

A positive culture from ocular fluid or other body fluids was obtained in 82 patients (68.9%). The culture result of 1 patient was not available as he had it done elsewhere.
The blood was the highest source among all culture-positive results (50, 42.0%). Gram-negative organisms were more common (26 patients, 52.0%) than gram-positive organisms (20 patients, 40.0%). Four patients (8.0%) had a positive fungal culture from the blood (Fig. 2).
Forty-six patients (38.7%) had at least one positive culture from other body fluids. Other body fluid cultures yielded gram-positive organisms in 11 patients (23.9%), gram-negative in 28 patients (23.3%), and fungal in 7 patients (15.2%). Nineteen patients (41.3%) had a positive urine culture; 14 (30.4%) had positive cultures from infected catheter, skin, soft tissue, or joint; 8 (17.4%) had positive sputum cultures; 5 (10.9%) had positive culture from liver abscess; 3 (6.5%) had positive high vaginal swab; and 1 patient (2.1%) had positive cerebrospinal fluid (Figs. 2 and 3).
Vitreous samples were obtained from 125 eyes. Vitreous culture was positive in 27 eyes (22.3%). Of these, 22 eyes (81.4%) had bacterial and 5 eyes (18.5%) had fungal isolates. Among bacterial isolates, 10 (37.0%) were gram-positive and 12 (44.4%) were gram-negative (Fig. 2).
The causative organisms cultured from the blood, vitreous, and other body fluids are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2
Microbial isolates from blood, other body fluids, and vitreous
Species
Blood (n = patient)
Other body fluids (n = patient)
Vitreous (n = eyes)
Culture positive
50 (42.0%)
46 (38.7%)
27 (22.3%)
Culture negative
69 (58.0%)
73 (61.3%)
94 (77.7%)
Gram-positive organism
20 (40.0%)
11 (23.9%)
10 (37.0%)
Staphylococcus aureas
13 (26.0%)
7 (15.2%)
5 (18.5%)
 MRSA
3 (6.0%)
2 (4.3%)
2 (7.4%)
Staphylococcus coagulase -ve
2 (4.0%)
0 (0.0%)
2 (7.4%)
Streptococcus sp.
2 (4.0%)
2 (4.3%)
1 (3.7%)
Gram-negative organism
26 (52.0%)
28 (60.9%)
12 (44.4%)
Klebsiella pneumonia
17 (34.0%)
19 (41.3%)
8 (29.6%)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
2 (4.0%)
4 (8.7%)
3 (11.1%)
Escherichia coli
1 (2.0%)
3 (6.5%)
0 (0.0%)
Acinebacter sp.
1 (2.0%)
2 (4.3%)
0 (0.0%)
Enterobacter intermedius
1 (2.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Bukholderia cepacia
1 (2.0%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (3.7%)
Bukholderia pseudomallei
1 (2.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Elizabethkingia meningosepticum
1 (2.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Mycoplasma pneumonia
1 (2.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Fungal
4 (8.0%)
7 (15.2%)
5 (18.5%)
Candida albicans
1 (2.0%)
5 (10.9%)
1 (3.7%)
Candida tropicalis
2 (4.0%)
1 (2.2%)
0 (0.0%)
Penicillium sp.
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
2 (7.4%)
Phanerochaeta chrysosporium
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (3.7%)
Xylariaceae sp.
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (3.7%)
 Fungal (species not available)
1 (2.0%)
1 (2.2%)
0 (0.0%)
The microbiology of causative organisms is summarized in Table 3.
Table 3
Microbiology of causative organism in endogenous endophthalmitis
 
Number
Percent
Gram-positive bacteria
27
32.5
Staphylococcus aureas
17
20.5
 MRSA
3
3.6
Staphylococcus coagulase -ve
4
4.8
Streptococcus sp.
3
3.6
Gram-negative bacteria
42
50.6
Klebsiella pneumonia
27
32.5
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
5
6.0
Escherichia coli
3
3.6
Acinebacter sp.
2
2.4
Enterobacter intermedius
1
1.2
Bukholderia cepacia
1
1.2
Bukholderia pseudomallei
1
1.2
Elizabethkingia meningosepticum
1
1.2
Mycoplasma pneumonia
1
1.2
Fungal
14
16.9
Candida albicans
5
6.0
Candida tropicalis
3
3.6
Penicillium sp.
2
2.4
Phanerochaeta chrysosporium
1
1.2
Xylariaceae sp.
1
1.2
 Fungal (species not available)
2
2.4

Treatment

All patients were treated with systemic antibiotics or antifungal agents aimed at the source of infection and presumed causative organism. One hundred nineteen cases (85.6%) were on systemic antibiotics, and more than half (55.1%) were treated with ciprofloxacin either as monotherapy or in combination with other antibiotics. There was no statistically significant correlation between systemic ciprofloxacin and final visual outcomes (p = 0.68). Systemic steroids were not used in any of the patients. In addition, 126 eyes (88.7%) received intravitreal antibiotics (vancomycin and ceftazidime or amikacin) or antifungal (amphotericin B) injections or both. The injections were repeated in 75 eyes (59.5%). Intravitreal injection was not given in 16 cases (11.3%), and 10 of them (62.5%) had relatively good presenting visual acuity of 6/24 or better and mild vitritis. They were treated with systemic antibiotics or antifungals with close monitoring. No intravitreal injection of steroids was given to any eye. Overall, 69 eyes (48.6%) were managed medically either with systemic or intravitreal antibiotics or antifungals or both.
Out of 143 eyes, 73 (51.4%) underwent vitrectomy. Early vitrectomy was performed within 2 weeks from diagnosis in 38 eyes (52.1%). Silicone oil was injected in 35 eyes (47.9%), gas in 3 eyes (4.1%), air in 19 eyes (26.0%), and no intraocular tamponade was used in 16 eyes (21.9%).

Outcomes

The most common presenting visual acuity was between 6/60 and counting finger (CF) (48 eyes, 34.0%), followed by hand motion (38, 27.0%) and perception of light (22 eyes, 15.6%). Only 16 eyes (11.3%) and 14 eyes (9.9%) had presented visual acuity between 6/6 to 6/18 and 6/24 to 6/36 respectively. Overall, 56% had vision of CF or better at presentation. Vision was not available in 2 patients (1.4%) who could not cooperate during a vision test. Final visual acuity was available in 138 eyes (96.5%). Three patients were transferred to their original hospitals for the continuation of treatment and follow-up. One patient defaulted follow-up, and another patient passed away due to sepsis and multiorgan failure.
After treatment, 100 eyes (73.0%) achieved final visual acuity of CF or better. Ten eyes developed panophthalmitis, and 6 eyes required evisceration. Table 4 summarizes the logistic regression analysis results of patient characteristics that may predict a good visual outcome (CF or better).
Table 4
Prognostic factors associated with good visual outcomes
Prognostic factor (referent)
Crude odds ratio (95% CI)
p valuea
Adjusted odds ratio (95% CI)
p valueb
Gender (male)
 Female
2 (0.92, 4.37)
0.079
  
Age (0–50 years)
 > 50 years
0.85 (0.39, 1.86)
0.679
  
Medical illness (yes)
 No
1.60 (0.55, 4.63)
0.383
  
DM (yes)
 No
2.12 (0.93, 4.85)
0.071
  
Presenting VA (≥ CF)
 < CF
0.10 (0.04, 0.25)
0.000
0.09 (0.021, 0.384)
0.001
Fundus view (yes)
 No
0.15 (0.06, 0.38)
0.000
0.337 (0.068, 1.675)
0.184
Source of infection (yes)
 No
2.61 (0.93, 7.37)
0.062
  
Culture (positive)
 Negative
1.29 (0.54, 3.07)
0.566
  
Organism (gram+)
 Gram−
0.965 (0.275–3.386)
0.956
  
 Fungal
0.185 (0.019, 1.848)
0.151
  
Intravitreal antibiotic (yes)
 No
2.85 (0.62, 13.2)
0.234
  
Vitrectomy (yes)
 No
1.13 (0.53–2.41)
0.751
  
Early vitrectomy (≤ 2 weeks)
 > 2 weeks
1.69 (0.59–4.82)
0.327
  
The clinical summary of patients were summarized in Table 5
aUnivariate logistic regression
bOnly factors associated with good visual outcome in multivariate logistic regression model
Table 5
Clinical summary of endogenous endophthalmitis in the current study
Case
Age/sex/eye
Systemic risk factors
Initial VA
Culture
Organism
Source of infection
Systemic antibiotics/antifungal
IVT abk/antifungal
Vitrectomy
Final VA
Blood
Other body fluids
Vitreous
1
49/M/R
CF
+
+ Sputum
Acinetobacter sp.
Skin infection
Ciprofloxacin
Yes
Yes
6/18
2
76/F/R
PL
+ Skin
Candida albicans
Skin infection
Fluconazole
Yes
Yes
NPL
3
49/M/L
DM
4/60
+ Skin
Staphylococcus aureus
Skin infection
Unasyn
Yes
No
6/36
4
46/F/L
NAV
+ Sputum
Acinetobacter sp.
Lung infection
Ceftriaxone, sulperazone
Yes
No
NAV
5
39/F/L
Leukemia
6/36
Amphotericin, fluconazole
Yes
yes
6/9
6
71/M/L
CF
+
Klebsiella pneumonia
UTI
Cefuroxime
Yes
No
6/24
7
56/F/R
DM
NPL
Lung infection
Ciprofloxacin
Yes
No
NPL
8
56/M/L
Leukemia
6/60
+
Enterobacter intermedius
Vancomycin, moxifloxacin
Yes
No
HM
9
26/M/R
6/36
+
Not done
Staphylococcus aureus
IE
Cloxacillin, gentamicin
No
No
6/36
10
26/M/L
6/9
+
Not done
Staphylococcus aureus
IE
Cloxacillin, gentamicin
No
No
6/6
11
61/M/R
DM
CF
+
+ Urine
Candida albicans
UTI
Fluconazole, voriconazole
Yes
Yes
6/9
12
61/M/L
DM
6/36
+
+ Urine
Candida albicans
UTI
Fluconazole, voriconazole
Yes
Yes
6/9
13
60/M/R
DM
PL
+ Liver, + sputum
Klebsiella pneumonia
HPB infection
Ciprofloxacin, cefuroxime, metronidazole
Yes
Yes
PL
14
60/M/L
DM
PL
+ Liver, + sputum
Klebsiella pneumonia
HPB infection
Ciprofloxacin, cefuroxime, metronidazole
Yes
No
NPL
15
49/M/R
DM
HM
+ Urine
Staphylococcus aureus
DFU
Ciprofloxacin
Yes
Yes
CF
16
49/M/L
DM
HM
+ Urine
Staphylococcus aureus
DFU
Ciprofloxacin
Yes
Yes
NPL
17
52/F/L
DM
CF
Ciprofloxacin, vancomycin
Yes
No
CF
18
57/M/L
DM, renal failure
CF
+ Infected catheter
+
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
DFU
Ciprofloxacin, ceftazidime, meropenem
Yes
Yes
NPL
19
38/F/L
DM
HM
HPB infection
Ciprofloxacin
Yes
Yes
HM
20
71/F/R
DM
CF
+
Staphylococcus coagulase -ve
Lung infection
Cefuroxime
Yes
No
6/60
21
49/F/L
Renal failure on steroid
CF
Fluconazole
Yes
Yes
6/12
22
68/M/L
DM, malignancy
6/12
+ Sputum
Not done
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Lung infection
Ceftriaxone, cefuroxime
No
No
6/9
23
56/M/L
DM, renal failure, hydronephrosis
4/60
+
Staphylococcus aureus
Infected catheter
Cloxacillin
Yes
No
4/60
24
30/F/R
DM
PL
+ Urine
+
Klebsiella pneumonia
UTI
Vancomycin, ceftazidime
Yes
Yes
PL
25
65/F/R
6/60
UTI
NAV
Yes
Yes
6/24
26
19/F/R
SLE with lupus nephritis, on steroid
6/6
+
Staphylococcus aureus
Infected catheter
Vancomycin
Yes
No
6/18
27
75/F/R
DM
6/18
+ Sputum
Not done
Klebsiella pneumonia
Lung infection
Ciprofloxacin
No
No
6/24
28
75/F/L
DM
CF
+ Sputum
Klebsiella pneumonia
Lung infection
Ciprofloxacin
Yes
Yes
PL
29
51/F/R
DM
HM
+ HVS
Candida albicans
Fluconazole
Yes
Yes
6/9
30
53/F/L
HM
+
Staphylococcus aureus
Ciprofloxacin
Yes
Yes
CF
31
49/M/L
DM
HM
NAV
NAV
NAV
HPB infection
NAV
Yes
Yes
CF
32
19/M/R
HM
Not done
Meningitis
Ciprofloxacin
Yes
No
NAV
33
65/F/L
CNS lymphoma
CF
Ciprofloxacin
Yes
Yes
CF
34
77/M/R
CF
Ciprofloxacin, fluconazole
Yes
Yes
6/36
35
27/F/R
6/24
Not done
Lung infection
NAV
No
No
6/9
36
27/F/L
6/24
Not done
Lung infection
NAV
No
No
6/9
37
56/F/R
3/60
+
Not done
Staphylococcus aureus
UTI
C-penicillin, unasyn
No
No
6/9
38
62/M/R
DM
6/12
+
+ Urine
Not done
Streptococcus sp.
UTI
Piperacillin-tazobactam
Yes
No
6/9
39
62/M/L
DM
PL
+
+ Urine
Streptococcus sp.
UTI
Piperacillin-tazobactam
Yes
No
6/18
40
34/M/R
Renal failure
HM
+ Urine
NAV
Klebsiella pneumonia
UTI
Sulperazone
Yes
No
3/60
41
63/M/L
DM
CF
+ Sputum
Not done
Klebsiella pneumonia
Lung infection
Trimethoprime, sulphamethoxazole
No
No
CF
42
30/F/R
6/60
Skin infection
Cloxacillin
Yes
No
6/6
43
30/F/L
6/24
Not done
Skin infection
Cloxacillin
Yes
No
6/6
44
61/F/R
DM, sigmoid colon carcinoma
CF
Infected catheter
Ciprofloxacin, fluconazole
Yes
Yes
6/36
45
40/M/L
HM
HPB infection
Ciprofloxacin, meropenem
Yes
Yes
NPL
46
53/M/R
DM
HM
Lung infection
Cefoperazone
Yes
No
6/60
47
53/M/L
DM
HM
Lung infection
Ceftriaxone
Yes
No
HM
48
57/M/R
DM
HM
+
Staphylococcus aureus
UTI
Vancomycin
Yes
Yes
HM
49
57/M/L
DM
3/60
+
Staphylococcus aureus
UTI
Vancomycin
Yes
Yes
NPL
50
70/M/R
DM, hydronephrosis
HM
+
Staphylococcus aureus
Infected catheter
Cloxacillin, gentamicin
Yes
No
6/18
51
70/M/L
DM, hydronephrosis
HM
+
Staphylococcus aureus
Infected catheter
Cloxacillin, gentamicin
Yes
No
CF
52
19/M/L
Takayashu arteritis, renal failure on steroid
2/60
Ciprofoxacin, ceftazidime
Yes
No
6/18
53
56/F/R
DM
6/18
+
+ Liver
Klebsiella pneumonia
HPB infection
Cefuroxime
Yes
No
6/18
54
56/M/R
DM
HM
+
MRSA
Infected catheter
Ciprofloxacin
Yes
No
CF
55
56/M/L
DM
CF
+
Klebsiella pneumonia
Lung infection
Ceftazidime
Yes
No
NPL
56
57/M/R
CF
Ciprofloxacin
Yes
No
6/12
57
57/M/L
6/12
Not done
Ciprofloxacin
Yes
No
6/12
58
38/F/L
6/9
+ Urine
Escherichia coli
UTI
Ceftazidime
No
No
6/9
59
55/M/R
DM
CF
+ Infected catheter
Staphylococcus aureus
Skin infection
Ceftriaxone
Yes
No
CF
60
7/M/R
Leukemia
6/36
+ Infected catheter
Fungal*
Septic arthritis
Itraconazole
Yes
Yes
6/9
61
42/F/R
CF
+
Bukholderia pseudomallei
Ciprofloxacin
Yes
No
6/24
62
63/F/R
DM
NAV
+
+ Urine/infected catheter
Not done
Klebsiella pneumonia
Skin infection
Ciprofloxacin
No
No
NPL
63
71/F/L
HM
NAV
Lung infection
Ciprofloxacin
NAV
NAV
NAV
64
22/F/L
Leukemia
6/24
+
Not done
Fungal*
Voriconazole
No
No
6/18
65
45/M/L
DM, renal failure
NPL
+
+ Infected catheter
Staphylococcus aureus
Infected catheter
Cloxacillin
Yes
No
NPL
66
48/M/R
DM
CF
+
Klebsiella pneumonia
Lung infection
Ceftriaxone, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid
Yes
Yes
6/60
67
31/M/L
CF
Ciprofloxacin
Yes
Yes
6/6
68
54/M/L
6/60
+
+ Sputum, CSF
+
Klebsiella pneumonia
Lung infection
Ceftriaxone, imipenem
Yes
No
NPL
69
55/M/R
DM, renal failure
HM
+
+ Infected catheter
Staphylococcus aureus
Skin infection
Ciprofloxacin
Yes
Yes
6/60
70
55/M/L
DM, renal failure
HM
+
+ Infected catheter
Staphylococcus aureus
Skin infection
Ciprofloxacin
Yes
Yes
6/36
71
14/F/L
6/36
Not done
Ceftazidime, trimethoprime, sulphamethoxazole
No
No
6/18
72
42/F/L
6/60
HPB infection
Ciprofloxacin, Ceftazidime
Yes
Yes
CF
73
30/F/R
6/12
+ HVS
Steroptococcus sp.
Genital infection
c-penicillin
Yes
No
6/12
74
67/F/L
DM
HM
Lung infection
Ceftazidime
Yes
No
NAV
75
65/M/L
CF
+ Liver
Klebsiella pneumonia
HPB infection
Ciprofloxacin, imipenem
Yes
Yes
CF
76
34/F/R
Leukemia
PL
+
Candida tropicalis
Voriconazole
Yes
No
NPL
77
34/F/L
Leukemia
CF
+
Candida tropicalis
Voriconazole
Yes
Yes
6/60
78
58/M/R
DM, renal failure
NPL
+
+ Urine
+
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
UTI
Ciprofloxacin, metronidazole
No
No
NPL
79
55/F/R
DM
6/60
+
+
Bukholderia cepacia
Meningitis
Ceftazidime
Yes
No
6/36
80
25/M/L
PL
+
+
Steroptococcus sp.
Cloxacillin
Yes
Yes
NPL
81
48/F/L
6/60
Ceftazidime
Yes
No
6/18
82
52/F/L
DM
CF
+
+ Urine
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
UTI
Ciprofloxacin
Yes
Yes
CF
83
55/F/L
DM
HM
+
Klebsiella pneumonia
Lung infection
Amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, azithromycin
Yes
Yes
CF
84
74/M/L
DM, renal carcinoma
CF
Skin infection
Ciprofloxacin, fluconazole
Yes
Yes
6/24
85
37/F/R
DM
HM
+
Lung infection
Ciprofloxacin
Yes
Yes
5/60
86
66/F/R
DM
PL
+ Infected catheter
+
Klebsiella pneumonia
Skin infection
Ciprofloxacin
Yes
Yes
CF
87
66/F/L
DM
PL
+ Infected catheter
+
Klebsiella pneumonia
Skin infection
Ciprofloxacin
Yes
No
CF
88
50/F/R
DM
HM
+
Staphylococcus coagulase -ve
UTI
Ciprofloxacin
Yes
No
6/9
89
65/M/R
DM, alcoholic liver disease
CF
+ Urine
Candida albicans
HPB infection
Fluconazole
Yes
Yes
CF
90
65/M/L
DM, alcoholic liver disease
CF
+ Urine
Candida albicans
HPB infection
Fluconazole
Yes
Yes
3/60
91
49/F/L
DM
6/9
Skin infection
Ciprofloxacin, fluconazole
Yes
Yes
HM
92
41/F/R
Leukemia
6/7.5
+
Not done
Candida tropicalis
Voriconazole
Yes
No
6/9
93
41/F/L
Leukemia
6/60
+
Candida tropicalis
Voriconazole
Yes
No
6/18
94
58/M/R
DM, liver disease
6/36
Ceftazidime
Yes
No
6/9
95
55/F/R
Auto-immune hepatitis on steroid and immunosuppressant
CF
Ciprofloxacin
Yes
No
6/12
96
81/M/R
HM
Ciprofloxacin
Yes
Yes
6/12
97
32/F/R
Leukemia
6/24
+
Xylariaceae sp.
Voriconazole
Yes
Yes
CF
98
32/F/L
Leukemia
6/12
Voriconazole
Yes
Yes
6/12
99
63/F/R
HM
+
Staphylococcus coagulase -ve
Skin infection
Ciprofloxacin
Yes
Yes
6/9
100
54/M/L
DM, renal failure
PL
+
+ Infected catheter
+
Staphylococcus aureus
Infected catheter
Ciprofloxacin, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid
Yes
No
NPL
101
46/F/R
DM
HM
+
Penicillium sp.
Amphotericin, fluconazole
Yes
Yes
CF
102
64/M/L
DM, rectal carcinoma
PL
Ciprofloxacin
Yes
Yes
HM
103
66/M/L
DM
6/24
+
+
Mycoplasma pneumonia
Lung infection
Ciprofloxacin, azithromycin
Yes
Yes
6/9
104
59/F/L
DM, renal failure
HM
Ciprofloxacin
Yes
Yes
CF
105
70/M/R
DM
PL
+
Penicillium sp.
Itraconazole
Yes
Yes
6/36
106
41/F/R
DM
HM
Lung infection
Ciprofloxacin
Yes
Yes
PL
107
67/M/L
DM
6/9
+
+ Urine
+
Escherichia coli
UTI
Ciprofloxacin
Yes
Yes
CF
108
63/M/R
1/60
+
+ Infected catheter
+
MRSA
Skin infection
Vancomycin, ciprofloxacin
Yes
Yes
6/9
109
63/M/L
6/24
+
+ Infected catheter
Not done
MRSA
Skin infection
Vancomycin, ciprofloxacin
No
No
6/12
110
52/M/L
DM, renal failure
HM
+
Phanerochaete chrysosporium
Skin infection
Voriconazole
Yes
No
CF
111
45/M/R
DM, renal failure
PL
+
Staphylococcus aureus
Infected catheter
Cloxacillin
Yes
Yes
NPL
112
47/M/R
Alcoholic liver disease on steroid
6/12
+
Not done
Staphylococcus aureus
Skin infection
Cloxacillin
No
No
6/9
113
47/M/L
Alcoholic liver disease on steroid
6/12
+
Not done
Staphylococcus aureus
Skin infection
Cloxacillin
No
No
6/9
114
58/M/L
DM
PL
+
+ Infected catheter
+
MRSA
Genital infection
Ciprofloxacin
Yes
Yes
HM
115
67/F/R
6/36
+ Urine
+
Klebsiella pneumonia
UTI
Cefuroxime
Yes
Yes
CF
116
48/M/L
DM
HM
Not done
Skin infection
Ciprofloxacin
Yes
Yes
6/18
117
78/F/L
CF
+
Staphylococcus coagulase -ve
Ciprofloxacin, ceftazidime
Yes
Yes
3/60
118
61/F/L
DM
PL
+ Urine
Klebsiella pneumonia
UTI
Ciprofloxacin, meropenem
Yes
Yes
CF
119
55/F/L
DM
3/60
+
+ Sputum
Klebsiella pneumonia
Lung infection
Ceftazidime
Yes
Yes
6/12
120
55/M/L
PL
+
+
Klebsiella pneumonia
HPB infection
Ceftriaxone, ciprofloxacin, metronidazole
Yes
No
NPL
121
60/M/R
DM
PL
+
+ Infected catheter
+
Staphylococcus aureus
Skin infection
Cloxacillin, ceftazidime
Yes
No
HM
122
60/M/L
DM
PL
+
+ Infected catheter
+
Staphylococcus aureus
Skin infection
Cloxacillin, ceftazidime
Yes
Yes
HM
123
40/F/R
DM/liver cirrhosis, myelodysplastic syndrome
6/18
+
+ Infected catheter
Klebsiella pneumonia
Lung infection
Cefuroxime, piperacillin-tazobactam
Yes
Yes
CF
124
32/F/L
DM
6/60
+
Klebsiella pneumonia
UTI
Cefuroxime
Yes
No
6/12
125
34/F/L
DM
HM
+ Urine
+
Candida albicans
Amphoterin
Yes
Yes
6/18
126
57/F/R
DM
PL
+
Klebsiella pneumonia
AGE
Ciprofloxacin
Yes
Yes
NAV
127
48/M/R
DM
PL
DFU
Ciprofloxacin, Ceftazidime
Yes
No
NPL
128
65/F/R
DM
1/60
+ Urine
Klebsiella pneumonia
UTI
Ciprofloxacin
Yes
No
6/60
129
65/F/R
DM, renal failure
HM
Ciprofloxacin
Yes
Yes
CF
130
72/F/L
DM
HM
+ Urine
Escherichia coli
UTI
Ciprofloxacin, trimethoprime, sulphamethoxazole
Yes
No
NPL
131
55/F/R
DM
HM
+
Klebsiella pneumonia
HPB infection
Ceftriaxone
Yes
Yes
HM
132
67/M/R
Adenocarcinoma of lung and colon
HM
Infected catheter
Fluconazole, voriconazole
Yes
Yes
NPL
133
68/F/L
DM, renal failure
CF
+
Elizabethkingia meningocepticum
Infected catheter
Ceftazidime, cefazolin, vancomycin
Yes
No
CF
134
68/F/R
DM, renal failure
6/24
+
Elizabethkingia meningocepticum
Infected catheter
Ceftazidime, cefazolin, vancomycin
Yes
No
6/12
135
61/F/L
DM, renal failure
HM
+
Staphylococcus aureus
Infected catheter
Cloxacillin
Yes
No
6/36
136
44/M/L
DM
PL
+
+ Liver
+
Klebsiella pneumonia
HPB infection
Ceftazidime, imipenem
Yes
No
NPL
137
65/M/L
DM, chronic cystitis
CF
+ Urine
Klebsiella pneumonia
UTI
Ciprofloxacin
Yes
Yes
CF
138
59/F/L
DM, renal Failure
HM
Skin infection
Ciprofloxacin
Yes
Yes
6/18
139
67/F/L
Hepatolithiasis
PL
+
+ Liver
Klebsiella pneumonia
HPB infection
Ciprofloxacin, imipenem
Yes
No
NPL
140
76/M/R
DM
CF
+ Urine
Candida albicans
UTI
Fluconazole
Yes
Yes
6/9
141
76/M/L
DM
CF
+ Urine
Candida albicans
UTI
Fluconazole
Yes
Yes
6/24
142
38/F/R
HM
+
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Ceftriaxone, ciprofloxacin, metronidazole
Yes
Yes
HM
143
69/M/L
DM
HM
+
+ Urine
+
Klebsiella pneumonia
UTI
Cefepime, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid
Yes
Yes
1/60
Abbreviation: IVT intravitreal, abk antibiotic, DM diabetes mellitus, NAV not available, UTI urinary tract infection, IE infective endocarditis, HPB hepatobiliary, DFU diabetic foot ulcer, AGE acute gastroenteritis, MRSA methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, CF counting finger, HM hand movement, PL perception of light, NPL non-perception of light
In univariate logistic regression analysis, factors found to be statistically significant with good visual outcome were good presenting visual acuity (crude odd ratio 0.1; 95% CI 0.021, 0.384) and presence of fundus view at presentation (crude odd ratio 0.337; 95% CI 0.068,1.675). In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, elevated risk for good visual outcome was observed only in good presenting visual acuity (adjusted odd ratio 0.09; 95% CI 0.021, 0.384). We also found a moderate correlation between presenting visual acuity and final visual acuity (Pearson r = 0.564, p < 0.001 (Fig. 4).
Gender, age group, presence of underlying medical illness, existing DM, source of infection, culture positivity, types of organism, intravitreal antibiotics, vitrectomy, or early vitrectomy were not significantly associated with good final visual outcomes.

Discussion

In this study, we wanted to determine whether the clinical profiles of EE at a tertiary hospital in Malaysia were similar to those reported from other countries.
Previous studies had reported a male preponderance with unilateral involvement [710]. In contrast, our results showed no difference between male and females.
Predisposing conditions are important in determining a patient’s risk for endogenous endophthalmitis. Okada et al. reported 90% of patients had a positive history of underlying medical conditions such as diabetes, cardiac disease, and malignancy [2]. A major review of endogenous endophthalmitis demonstrated underlying medical conditions predisposing to ocular infection in 56 to 68% of cases [4]. Another study conducted by Wu and colleagues revealed the identification of preexisting predisposing condition in 90.9% of patients, and the most common systemic condition found was diabetes mellitus (50%) [11]. In contrast, Connell et al. reported that intravenous drug abuse was the most common risk factor [1]. Several East Asian studies reported that diabetes mellitus was the most common, and hepatobiliary disease was the second most frequent underlying disease [5, 1214]. In a review of 57 cases of endogenous endophthalmitis in Korea, diabetes mellitus (46.5%) was the most common underlying disease followed by liver cirrhosis (20.9%) [15]. In a recent study in which all patients had one or more preexisting medical conditions, the most common was also diabetes mellitus (61.9%) [16]. Our series revealed similar results, in which diabetes mellitus was the most common systemic disease (60.0%) followed by renal failure and malignancy. However, liver diseases were identified only in 6 patients.
In a review of cases by Wong et al., it was reported that hepatobiliary tract infection was the most common source of bacteremia (13 patients, 48%) [5]. Similar results were found in other Korean case series [12, 15, 17]. Interestingly, our case series did not show similar findings with other East Asian reports. We found that urinary tract infection (21, 17.5%) was the most common source of bacteremia followed by pulmonary infection (19, 15.8%). Hepatobiliary tract infection was only identified in 12 patients (10.0%). We also found that among patients who were younger than 40 years old, and older than 60 years old, the most common systemic infection was urinary tract infection at 17.4% and 30.0% respectively. In contrast, lung infection (17.5%) followed by hepatobiliary infection (14.0%) was the commonest infections among those aged from 40 to 60 years old.
In a case series by Lim et al., the most common presenting complaint was decreased vision (68.8%) followed by ocular discomfort (44%), red eye (20.8%), and ocular pain (17.4%) [15]. Ratra et al. also reported that reduced vision (60, 98.4%), redness (47, 77%), and pain (42, 68.8%) were the three most common presenting symptoms [8]. Similar to these studies, our study too revealed blurring of vision, eye redness, and eye pain or discomfort as the main presenting ocular symptoms. However in a case series by Nishida et al., floaters was the second most common ocular symptom after blurring of vision [16].
Ratra et al. in their case series demonstrated that all eyes had severe diffuse endophthalmitis involving the posterior pole. Diffuse vitreous exudates were seen in 47 eyes (77%). Retina could be visualized in 13 eyes (21.3%), and 3 (4.9%) had retinal detachment. None had panophthalmitis [8]. In another case series in 18-year review of culture-positive cases in 34 affected eyes, the most common findings were decreased visual acuity (91.1%), vitritis (79.4%), conjunctival injection (67.6%), iritis or retinitis (61.7%), hypopyon (35.2%), and retinal detachment (5.8%) [18]. In our study, 27 eyes (19%) had hypopyon, 64 eyes (44.8%) had fundus view, and 8 eyes (8.2%) were noted to have retinal detachment on ultrasound. Lower percentage of hypopyon in our patients could be due to the application of topical steroids and antibiotics by the referring ophthalmologist.
The diagnosis of endogenous endophthamitis is typically made following microbiologic evidence of infection from intraocular samples (aqueous or vitreous). Positive cultures from the blood, cerebrospinal fluid, or any extraocular site can be highly suggestive. In our series, the organism causing endophthalmitis was identified by a positive culture from at least one body fluid source in 82 patients (68.9%). Blood culture positivity rate varies widely, from 33 to 94% [4, 19]. Previous large case series have shown higher rates of positivity following blood cultures as compared to vitreous aspirates possibly due to a larger volume sampled [2, 4, 11]. In contrast, Ratra et al. had reported that ocular fluid samples tended to give positive culture results more than blood (58.6% vs 3.4%). This is because all the patients with suspected endogenous endophthalmitis immediately underwent an aqueous tap in the outpatient department before any intravitreal therapy [8]. High rate of positive cultures from intraocular specimens was also demonstrated by Okada et al. (86%), Binder et al. (70%), and Ness et al. (81%) [2, 20, 21]. Vitrectomy has a higher diagnostic yield for culture (92%) compared to a vitreous aspirate (44%) [22]. Vitreous samples during vitrectomy were taken near the retinal surface, which can potentially explain the lower yield of needle biopsy. This is because early or localized infection located near the retinal surface might be missed by a needle biopsy [23]. We noted low vitreous yield of organisms in our study. This could be because some of our patients with systemic infection were initially managed by physicians depending on the source of infection. During the time of referral, most of them were already on systemic antibiotics or partially treated. Furthermore, the diagnosis may have been delayed in some while others were generally not stable for early vitreous tapping. Thirty-six patients (30.0%) in our series were culture negative.
Causative organisms vary geographically. Studies from the western population revealed that fungal infection was the main source in predisposed states, such as intravenous drug abusers and immunocompromised patients [1, 19, 21]. In contrast, gram-negative microbes as the causative organisms were overwhelming in the East Asian experience. In these Asian populations, Klebsiella was found to be responsible for approximately 90% of all endogenous bacteria endophthalmitis cases [5]. Studies that were conducted in Korea showed that liver abscess was the most common infection source and Klebsiella was the most common causative agent [15, 17]. A study from Japan in 2015, however, demonstrated that gram-positive organisms were more common (76.2%) than gram-negative (19.0%), contrasted to the findings from other East Asian studies [16]. K. pneumonia which is predominant in East Asia may be due to the high incidence of cholangiohepatitis. Therefore, the East Asian population is more prone to have liver abscess than Caucasians [24]. We found that gram-negative organisms were responsible for half of the cases of endogenous endophthalmitis in our case series (42 patients, 50.6%) in which K. pneumonia was the most common organism isolated (27 patients, 32.5%). Interestingly, in contrast to several East Asian studies, urinary tract infection including renal abscess (9 patients, 33.3%) was the most common source of infection caused by K. pneumonia followed by lung infection (8 patients, 29.6%) in our series. Liver abscess was identified in 7 patients (25.9%). Necrotizing fasciitis, infected wound breakdown, and acute gastroenteritis (AGE) were noted in one patient each. Apart from that, there was a relatively higher frequency of gram-positive cocci and fungal infection in our study, 32.5% and 16.9% respectively.
Most systemically administered antimicrobials that have been used in the therapy of endophthalmitis do not penetrate well into the non-inflamed vitreous humor. However, the penetration of several antibiotics into the eye may be increased by inflammation which occurs following surgery, trauma, or infection. Kowalski and colleagues compared the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of bacterial isolates from 66 patients with endophthalmitis and found that all of the gram-negative isolates would have been inhibited by levels of ciprofloxacin achievable following systemic administration [25].
In endogenous endophthalmitis, the rationale for use of intravitreal injections as an adjunct to intravenous therapy is also because of reduced permeability of the retinal-pigmented epithelium to systemically administered drugs [26]. Yonekawa et al. showed that early administration, e.g., within 24 h, was associated with a favorable visual outcome [27]. Most of our patients received intravitreal injections within 24 h of diagnosis.
Vitrectomy serves as a diagnostic and therapeutic option. It is indicated in cases with severe vitreous opacities, diffuse retinal infiltration, and poor presenting visual acuity and when there is no clinical improvement with systemic and intravitreal therapy. However, the role and timing of vitrectomy remain unclear in patients with endogenous endophthalmitis. Sheu et al. reported no significant relationship between vitrectomy and visual outcome in Klebsiella endophthalmitis. However, they suggested early vitrectomy should be considered in patients whose anterior chamber inflammation did not respond well to intravitreal antibiotics [28]. On the other hand, Yoon et al. demonstrated that following early vitrectomy for Klebsiella endogenous endophthalmitis, 50% achieved a vision of CF or better after 6 months [14]. Early vitrectomy performed within 10 days of the appearance of ocular symptoms or signs resulted in a better visual prognosis (CF or better) than without vitrectomy [17]. In other studies, early vitrectomy within 2 weeks of presentation in severe cases or suspected virulent organisms was associated with good overall outcome [14, 17]. In our case series, 73 eyes (51.4%) underwent vitrectomy. Vitrectomy was performed within 2 weeks in 38 eyes (52.1%) and more than 2 weeks in 35 eyes (47.9%). The most common indication for early vitrectomy was poor presenting visual acuity of CF or worse in 31 cases (81.6%). Persistent or increased vitreous opacities or anterior chamber cells despite systemic and intravitreal antibiotics were other indications for early vitrectomy. There was no significant difference between early vitrectomy (within 2 weeks) compared to delayed vitrectomy (more than 2 weeks) for favorable visual prognosis (p = 0.327).
Generally, the visual outcome of endogenous endophthalmitis is poor due to early and extensive retinal involvement. Virulent causative organisms, poor host defense, misdiagnosis leading to delayed treatment, inadequate treatment, inappropriate therapy, and occurrence of complications such as panophthalmitis are associated with poor prognosis. Wu et al. reported that the eyes with bacterial endogenous endophthalmitis had a worse outcome compared to patients with fungal endophthalmitis [11]. Lim et al. concluded that gram-negative bacteria had worse visual outcomes compared to gram-positive bacteria or fungus [15].
Visual outcomes in Klebsiella endophthalmitis has been poor despite treatment with a combination of systemic and intravitreal antibiotics [12, 13]. Case series and literature reviews involving infection with K. pneumonia showed that visual acuity achieved was CF or better in 34.0% of eyes, and 16.0% had evisceration or enucleation [5]. Sheu et al. reported 19 eyes (35.8%) had final visual acuity of CF or better [28]. Connell et al. found that all the patients in their study needing enucleation were infected by Klebsiella [1]. In our series, 100 eyes (73.0%) achieved final visual acuity of CF or better. However, in cases with Klebsiella endogenous endophthalmitis, only 18 eyes (25.4%) achieved final visual acuity of CF or better, which is comparable with other studies. Ten eyes were complicated with panophthalmitis, and 5 of them were due to Klebsiella pneumonia.
In our series, a good presenting visual acuity was the only prognostic factor associated with good visual outcomes of CF or better. Lim et al., Nishida et al., and Binder et al. in their case series also described that a good presenting visual acuity was significantly associated with good final visual acuity [15, 16, 20]. We found that DM, presence of a source of infection, organism, and intravitreal antibiotics were not related to poor visual outcome.

Study limitation

This study is limited by the retrospective design. As the data was collected retrospectively, some of the information was not available. Apart from that, patients with culture-negative result were also included in this study which may have included those with non-infectious uveitis. In the future, we may need to use other methods such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) with higher sensitivity and specificity. Lack of uniform guidelines and treatment protocol is another limitation. Observational and prospective case series are needed in the future to assess long-term outcomes.

Conclusions

The visual prognosis of endogenous endophthalmitis (EE) is poor. Gram-negative organisms specifically Klebsiella pneumonia were the most common organisms isolated. Urinary tract infection was the main source of infection. Poor presenting visual acuity was significantly associated with poor visual outcomes.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Director General of Health Malaysia for his permission to publish this article. Last but not least, we express our gratitude to CRC Hospital Sultanah Nur Zahirah, Kuala Terengganu, and those who had extended their help in contributing to this manuscript.
Ethics approval was obtained by the Medical Research and Ethics Committee (MREC) prior to the initiation of the study.
Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Literatur
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Okada AA, Johnson RP, Liles WC et al (1994) Endogenous bacterial endophthalmitis: report of a ten-year retrospective study. Ophthalmology 101:832–838CrossRef Okada AA, Johnson RP, Liles WC et al (1994) Endogenous bacterial endophthalmitis: report of a ten-year retrospective study. Ophthalmology 101:832–838CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Chee SP, Jap A (2001) Endogenous endophthalmitis. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 12(6):464–470CrossRef Chee SP, Jap A (2001) Endogenous endophthalmitis. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 12(6):464–470CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Jackson TL, Eykyn SJ, Graham EM et al (2003) Endogenous bacterial endophthalmitis: a 17 year prospective series and review of 267 reported cases. Surv Ophthalmol 48(4):403–423CrossRef Jackson TL, Eykyn SJ, Graham EM et al (2003) Endogenous bacterial endophthalmitis: a 17 year prospective series and review of 267 reported cases. Surv Ophthalmol 48(4):403–423CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Wong JS, Chan TK, Lee HM, Chee SP (2000) Endogenous bacterial endophthalmitis: an East Asian experience and a reappraisal of a severe ocular affliction. Ophthalmology 107:1483–1491CrossRef Wong JS, Chan TK, Lee HM, Chee SP (2000) Endogenous bacterial endophthalmitis: an East Asian experience and a reappraisal of a severe ocular affliction. Ophthalmology 107:1483–1491CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Sharma S, Padhi TR, Basu S et al (2014) Endophthalmitis patients seen in a tertiary eye care centre in Odisha: a clinico-microbiological analysis. India J Med Res 139:91–98 Sharma S, Padhi TR, Basu S et al (2014) Endophthalmitis patients seen in a tertiary eye care centre in Odisha: a clinico-microbiological analysis. India J Med Res 139:91–98
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Leibovitch I, Lai T, Raymond G et al (2005) Endogenous endophthalmitis: a 13 year review at a tertiary hospital in South Australia. Scand J Infect Dis 37:184–189CrossRef Leibovitch I, Lai T, Raymond G et al (2005) Endogenous endophthalmitis: a 13 year review at a tertiary hospital in South Australia. Scand J Infect Dis 37:184–189CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Ratra D, Saurabh K, Das D et al (2015) Endogenous Endophthalmitis : a 10-year retrospective study at a tertiary hospital in South India. Asia Pac J ophthalmol 4:286–292 doi:10.109/APO.0000000000000120CrossRef Ratra D, Saurabh K, Das D et al (2015) Endogenous Endophthalmitis : a 10-year retrospective study at a tertiary hospital in South India. Asia Pac J ophthalmol 4:286–292 doi:10.109/APO.0000000000000120CrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Keswani T, Ahuja V, Changulani M (2006) Evaluation of outcomes of various treatment methods for endogenous endophthalmitis. Indian J Med Sci 60:454–460CrossRef Keswani T, Ahuja V, Changulani M (2006) Evaluation of outcomes of various treatment methods for endogenous endophthalmitis. Indian J Med Sci 60:454–460CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Chen YJ, Kuo HK, Wu PC et al (2004) A 10-year comparison of endogenous endophthalmitis outcomes: an East Asian experience with Klebsiella pneumoniae infection. Retina 24:383–390CrossRef Chen YJ, Kuo HK, Wu PC et al (2004) A 10-year comparison of endogenous endophthalmitis outcomes: an East Asian experience with Klebsiella pneumoniae infection. Retina 24:383–390CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Yang CS, Tsai HY, Sung CS et al (2007) Endogenous Klebsiella endophthalmitis associated with pyogenic liver abscess. Ophthalmology 114:876–880CrossRef Yang CS, Tsai HY, Sung CS et al (2007) Endogenous Klebsiella endophthalmitis associated with pyogenic liver abscess. Ophthalmology 114:876–880CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Yoon YH, Lee SU, Sohn JH, Lee SE (2003) Result of early vitrectomy for endogenous Klebsiella pneumoniae endophthalmitis. Retina 23:366–370CrossRef Yoon YH, Lee SU, Sohn JH, Lee SE (2003) Result of early vitrectomy for endogenous Klebsiella pneumoniae endophthalmitis. Retina 23:366–370CrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Binder MI, Chua J, Kaiser PK et al (2003) Endogenous endophthalmitis. An 18-years review of culture-positive cases at a tertiary care center. Medicine 82:97–105CrossRef Binder MI, Chua J, Kaiser PK et al (2003) Endogenous endophthalmitis. An 18-years review of culture-positive cases at a tertiary care center. Medicine 82:97–105CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Ness T, Pelz K, Hansen LL (2007) Endogenous endophthalmitis: microorganism, disposition and prognosis. Acta Ophthalmol 85:852–856CrossRef Ness T, Pelz K, Hansen LL (2007) Endogenous endophthalmitis: microorganism, disposition and prognosis. Acta Ophthalmol 85:852–856CrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Nakayama F, Soloway RO, Nakama T et al (1986) Hepatolithiasis in East Asia. Retrospective study. Dig Dis Sci 31:21–26CrossRef Nakayama F, Soloway RO, Nakama T et al (1986) Hepatolithiasis in East Asia. Retrospective study. Dig Dis Sci 31:21–26CrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Kowalski RP, Karenchak LM, Eller AW (1993) The role of ciprofoxacin in endophthalmitis therapy. Am J Ophthalmol 116:695–699CrossRef Kowalski RP, Karenchak LM, Eller AW (1993) The role of ciprofoxacin in endophthalmitis therapy. Am J Ophthalmol 116:695–699CrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Lesar TS, Fiscella RG (1985) Antimicrobial drug delivery to the eye. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 19:642–654CrossRef Lesar TS, Fiscella RG (1985) Antimicrobial drug delivery to the eye. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 19:642–654CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Endogenous endophthalmitis: a 9-year retrospective study at a tertiary referral hospital in Malaysia
verfasst von
Rosiah Muda
Valarmathy Vayavari
Deivanai Subbiah
Hamisah Ishak
Azian Adnan
Shelina Oli Mohamed
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2018
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Journal of Ophthalmic Inflammation and Infection / Ausgabe 1/2018
Elektronische ISSN: 1869-5760
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12348-018-0158-3

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2018

Journal of Ophthalmic Inflammation and Infection 1/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Neu im Fachgebiet Augenheilkunde

Update Augenheilkunde

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.