JOURNAL ARTICLE
OBSERVATIONAL STUDY
RESEARCH SUPPORT, N.I.H., EXTRAMURAL
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
RESEARCH SUPPORT, U.S. GOV'T, NON-P.H.S.
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Endophthalmitis caused by Enterococcus faecalis: clinical features, antibiotic sensitivities, and 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.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app