SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.74Ultrasound of entheses in ankylosing spondylitis patients: The importance of the calcaneal and quadriceps entheses for differentiating patients from healthy individualsDevelopment and evaluation of a training model for paracentetic suprapubic cystostomy and catheterization author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Journal

Article

  • text new page (beta)
  • English (pdf)
  • Article in xml format
  • How to cite this article
  • SciELO Analytics
  • Curriculum ScienTI
  • Automatic translation

Indicators

Related links

Share


Clinics

Print version ISSN 1807-5932On-line version ISSN 1980-5322

Clinics vol.74  São Paulo  2019  Epub Apr 08, 2019

http://dx.doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2019/e837 

Original Article

Diagnostic value of pediatric blood culture bottles for acute postoperative endophthalmitis

Tatiana TanakaI  * 
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4641-7421

Bruno Fortaleza de Aquino FerreiraI 
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3555-9122

Luiza Manhezi Shin de OliveiraI 
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8006-1011

Juliana Mika KatoI 
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1815-4644

Thais Sabato Romano Di GioiaII 
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7507-626X

Flavia RossiII 
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2298-1869

Yoshitaka NakashimaI 
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5572-0596

Sergio Luis Gianotti PimentelI 
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2270-8806

Joyce Hisae YamamotoI 
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6869-2988

Joao Nobrega de Almeida JuniorII 
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3766-026X

IDepartamento de Oftalmologia (LIM 33), Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, BR.

IIDivisao Laboratorio Central (LIM 03), Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, BR.


ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

To report our experience using conventional culture methods (CM) and pediatric blood culture bottles (PBCBs) for vitreous sample culture of acute postoperative endophthalmitis.

METHODS:

A retrospective study was conducted at the Department of Ophthalmology, Hospital das Clinicas, HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, BR, from January 2010 to December 2015, and it included 54 patients with clinically suspected acute postoperative endophthalmitis. Vitreous samples were obtained by vitreous tap or vitrectomy. Samples from January 2010 to December 2011 were cultivated in CM, whereas samples from January 2012 to December 2015 were inoculated in PBCBs. The measured outcome was the yield of positive cultures.

RESULTS:

Twenty cases were included in the CM group, and 34 cases were included in the PBCB group. The yield of positive cultures in PBCBs (64.7%) was significantly higher than that in conventional CM (35%, p=0.034). Staphylococcus epidermidis and Streptococcus viridans were the two most commonly found agents.

CONCLUSION:

PBCBs can be used successfully in clinically suspected endophthalmitis. The method showed a higher yield of positive cultures than the conventional method. This technique appears to have several advantages over the traditional method: it saves time, as only one medium needs to be inoculated; transportation to a laboratory is easier than in the traditional method, and there is no need to maintain a supply of fresh agar media. The use of PBCBs may be recommended as the primary method for microbiological diagnosis and is especially suitable for office settings and remote clinics.

KEYWORDS: Endophthalmitis; Conventional Culture; Blood Culture Bottle; Postoperative Complications

INTRODUCTION

Endophthalmitis is a serious intraocular infectious disease associated with elective surgical procedures (75 to 80%), ocular trauma (3.3 to 17%) and endogenous infections (5-15%) (13). Suspected cases are initially treated with intravitreal injection of broad-spectrum antibiotics (vancomycin and ceftazidime) (4).

The use of sample cultures is essential to confirming endophthalmitis etiology. Several conditions such as ocular inflammation from noninfectious uveitis, fungal endophthalmitis, and toxic anterior segment syndrome may mimic clinical presentation of endophthalmitis, but bacterial cultures are negative in these cases (5). Identification of the pathogen in cases of endophthalmitis may improve treatment by the early introduction of targeted antibiotics.

Despite advances in molecular assays for detecting pathogens, microbial culture is still the current reference method for the etiological diagnosis of endophthalmitis. Conventional culture methods (CM) use solid or broth media including thioglycolate. However, rates of identification increase when blood culture bottles (BCBs) are used (3,69).

The present study aimed to report our own experience using pediatric BCBs (PBCBs) and conventional media for vitreous sample culture in acute postoperative endophthalmitis.

METHODS

Fifty-four cases of clinically suspected acute postoperative endophthalmitis, attended at the Department of Ophthalmology, Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, BR, between January 2010 and December 2015, were retrospectively included. This study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee (CAAE: 36514614.4.0000.0068).

Undiluted vitreous samples (200 to 500 mL) were collected by pars plana vitrectomy or vitreous tap after local antisepsis, under local anesthesia and before intravitreal administration of antibiotics.

From January 2010 to December 2011, samples were cultivated in CM (thioglycolate) for 5 days at 35°C. From January 2012 to December 2015, samples were inoculated in PBCBs (BACTEC Plus Aerobic/F, BD Diagnostics, USA) and incubated in automated machines for up to 5 days. Positive samples from CM or PBCBs were later inoculated in sheep blood and chocolate agar and incubated for 48 hours under a 5% CO2 atmosphere. Identification of causative agents and antibiotic sensitivity tests were performed by VITEK 2 (BioMèrieux, France).

The yields of positive cultures with CM and with PBCBs were compared by using McNemar's test, and the results were considered statistically significant if the p-value was less than 5% (p<0.05).

RESULTS

Vitreous samples from 54 patients with endophthalmitis were analyzed. They were associated with phacoemulsification (n=21; 38.9%), trabeculectomy (n=11; 20.4%), extracapsular cataract extraction (n=6; 11.1%), phacoemulsification combined with trabeculectomy (n=5; 9.3%), pars plana vitrectomy (n=4; 7.4%), intravitreal bevacizumab injection (n=4; 7.4%), congenital cataract surgery (n=2; 3.7%) and phacoemulsification combined with pars plana vitrectomy (n=1; 1.8%).

Thirty-five percent (7 out of 20 cases) of CM and 64.7% (22 out of 34 cases) of PBCB cultures were positive (p=0.034) (Table 1). Isolated agents from the 29 positive cultures were Staphylococcus epidermidis (n=7; 24.2%), Streptococcus viridans (n=6; 20.9%), Staphylococcus aureus (n=3; 10.4%), Haemophilus influenzae (n=3; 10.4%), coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (n=2; 6.9%), Streptococcus pneumoniae (n=1; 3.4%), Enterococcus faecalis (n=1; 3.4%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n=1; 3.4%), Klebsiella oxytoca (n=1; 3.4%), Serratia marcescens (n=1; 3.4%), Staphylococcus lugdunensis (n=1; 3.4%), unspecific gram-positive bacilli (n=1; 3.4%) and Enterobacter cloacae (n=1; 3.44). Seventy-six percent of the isolates were gram-positive bacteria, mainly Staphylococcus spp. and Streptococcus spp. (n=20; 68.9%). Agents isolated from conventional media or in PBCBs according to the associated procedure are described in Table 2.

Table 1 Isolated agents from vitreous samples from patients with acute postoperative endophthalmitis using the conventional method (CM) and pediatric blood culture bottles (PBCBs). 

Isolated agents CM (n=7) PBCB (n=22) Total
Staphylococcus epidermidis 2 5 7 (24.2%)
Streptococcus viridans 1 5 6 (20.9%)
Staphylococcus aureus - 3 3 (10.4%)
Haemophilus influenzae - 3 3 (10.4%)
Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus 2 - 2 (6.9%)
Staphylococcus lugdunensis - 1 1 (3.4%)
Streptococcus pneumoniae - 1 1 (3.4%)
Enterococcus faecalis - 1 1 (3.4%)
Enterobacter cloacae 1 - 1 (3.4%)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa 1 - 1 (3.4%)
Klebsiella oxytoca - 1 1 (3.4%)
Serratia marcescens - 1 1 (3.4%)
Unspecific gram-positive bacilli - 1 1 (3.4%)

Table 2 Isolated agents according to procedure and use of conventional media or pediatric blood culture bottles (PBCBs). 

Procedure Conventional media, n (positive cases, %) Isolated agent (n) PBCB, n (positive cases, %) Isolated agent (n)
Phacoemulsification 9 (4, 44.4%) Staphylococcus epidermidis (1) 12 (8, 66.7%) Staphylococcus epidermidis(3)
Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (1) Staphylococcus aureus (1)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa (1) Staphylococcus lugdunensis (1)
Enterobacter cloacae (1) Streptococcus viridans (2)
Unspecific gram-positive bacilli (1)
Extracapsular cataract extraction 2 (1, 50.0%) Staphylococcus epidermidis (1) 4 (3, 75.0%) Staphylococcus aureus (1)
Haemophilus influenzae (1)
Klebsiella oxytoca (1)
Pars plana vitrectomy 4 (1, 25.0%) Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (1) 0 (0)
Trabeculectomy 3 (0, 0%) 8 (7, 87.5%) Staphylococcus epidermidis (1)
Streptococcus viridans (3)
Streptococcus pneumoniae (1)
Enterococcus faecalis (1)
Serratia marcescens (1)

DISCUSSION

Endophthalmitis is a rare and devastating complication of ocular surgeries. Rapid identification of the pathogen with adequate treatment may impact visual prognosis. Conventional culture uses solid or broth media; however, PBCBs confer several advantages. Therefore, we demonstrate our experience with using PBCBs for endophthalmitis.

Conventional methods include the use of blood agar, chocolate agar, Sabouraud agar and thioglycolate broth. They require immediate incubation (not available at all ophthalmologic centers), and endophthalmitis positivity varies widely in the literature, ranging from 24 to 72% (3,68,1017). These low sensitivities can be explained by various factors such as the small volume of specimens, the use of antibiotics before the collection of clinical material and the presence of fastidious microorganisms causing endophthalmitis (18).

On the other hand, BCBs confer the possibility of storage at room temperature, microorganism growth with small volume samples, ease of inoculation and low risk of contamination during transport. The use of BCBs is a good alternative in cases of endophthalmitis in areas with limited access to a microbiology laboratory. BCBs also allows the growth of fastidious pathogens (which grow better in atmospheres with high CO2 tension) and contain resin that can adsorb antibiotics if the patient has already received them (19). PBCBs have already been accepted as a diagnostic tool for small samples such as blood in pediatric practice, synovial fluid, pleural fluid and peritoneal fluid (19). Kratz et al. have also used PBCBs to test for infectious keratitis and had promising results. Indeed, in some endophthalmitis studies, PBCBs were used (3). Studies using undiluted vitreous samples and BCBs showed average positivity varying from 61% to 100% (3,69,1922). In contrast, Rachitskaya et al. (21) had lower positivity (31.7%) than these values when they used BCBs, likely due to the use of diluted vitreous. Chiquet et al. compared diluted with undiluted vitreous samples using conventional culture methods and suggested that diluted samples were as effective as undiluted samples for microbiological diagnosis of endophthalmitis; however, they also commented that the small number of positive cultures could preclude improving the understanding of the impact of dilution on culture sensitivity (23).

Comparative studies of CM and BCB positivities were carried out in six studies (3,69,22); five of them demonstrated a higher positivity with BCBs than with conventional methods (Figure 1). Yospaiboon et al. had a cohort of 27 patients and reported low growth rates overall, 51.9% positivity in BCBs and 25.9% in the traditional method; as discussed by the authors, these results are likely due to the limited volume of samples (0.1-0.2 mL) and previous use of antibiotic therapy (6). Similar to the present study, Kim et al. used PBCBs and CM at different times, reporting positivity of 60.7% and 33.3%, respectively, across 50 samples (8). Thariya et al. presented the largest cohort, with 342 patients, which showed 90.1% positivity in BCBs and 65.6% in CM (9). Only Tan et al. showed a different trend, i.e., a higher positivity with CM culture than with BCBs, although the difference was not statistically significant (7).

Figure 1 Positivity (%) of vitreous sample cultures of patients with endophthalmitis using the conventional method (gray) and pediatric blood culture bottles (black) in the medical literature and including the present study. 

In our institution, PBCBs had been used since 2012 for all intraocular samples from patients with endophthalmitis. The present study compared the positivity obtained with the conventional method (previous 2012) and with PBCBs and demonstrated a higher positivity with PBCBs (35% versus 64.7%; p=0.034). These results are in agreement with previous studies and reinforce the advantages of using PBCBs as an alternative to CM for the etiologic diagnosis of acute postoperative endophthalmitis (3,6,9,10). Figure 1 summarizes the main studies using CM and BCB/PBCBs, including the present study.

The low number of samples for each method and the different periods of inclusion are the main limitations of the present study. Additionally, although the use of PBCBs has several advantages over conventional culture, in cases where anaerobic pathogens are suspected, anaerobic BCBs or broth medium (e.g., thioglycolate broth) should be used (21). Nevertheless, these are the first case series of the advantages of PBCBs produced in Brazil and adding to the international literature. The use of PBCBs should be recommended for microbiological diagnosis of endophthalmitis and is especially suitable for office settings and remote clinics.

CONCLUSION

PBCBs confer a higher positivity than CM in cultures of vitreous samples of clinically suspected infectious endophthalmitis.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil (CAPES). Finance Code 001.

REFERENCES

1. Jackson TL, Eykyn SJ, Graham EM, Stanford MR. Endogenous bacterial endophthalmitis: a 17-year prospective series and review of 267 reported cases. Surv Ophthalmol. 2003;48(4):403-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0039-6257(03)00054-7Links ]

2. Taban M, Behrens A, Newcomb RL, Nobe MY, Saedi G, Sweet PM, et al. Acute endophthalmitis following cataract surgery: a systematic review of the literature. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123(5):613-20. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.123.5.613Links ]

3. Kratz A, Levy J, Belfair N, Weinstein O, Klemperer I, Lifshitz T. Broth culture yield vs traditional approach in the work-up of endophthalmitis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;141(6):1022-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2006.01.076Links ]

4. Results of the Endophthalmitis Vitrectomy Study. A randomized trial of immediate vitrectomy and of intravenous antibiotics for the treatment of postoperative bacterial endophthalmitis. Arch Ophthalmol. 1995;113(12):1479-96. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1995.01100120009001Links ]

5. Gan IM, Ugahary LC, van Dissel JT, Feron E, Peperkamp E, Veckeneer M, et al. Intravitreal dexamethasone as adjuvant in the treatment of postoperative endophthalmitis: a prospective randomized trial. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005;243(12):1200-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-005-0133-1Links ]

6. Yospaiboon Y, Saree S, Pasadhika S. Blood culture and conventional media for vitreous culture in infectious endophthalmitis. J Med Assoc Thai. 2005;88(5):639-42. [ Links ]

7. Tan HS, Ghyczy-Carlborg EA, Spanjaard L, de Smet MD. The additional value of blood culture bottles in the diagnosis of endophthalmitis. Eye (Lond). 2011;25(8):1069-73. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2011.142Links ]

8. Kim KH, Kwon HJ, Park SW, Byon IS, Lee JE, Oum BS, et al. The effectiveness of pediatric blood culture bottle in endophthalmitis. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2015;56(9):1365-70. https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2015.56.9.1365Links ]

9. Thariya P, Yospaiboon Y, Sinawat S, Sanguansak T, Bhoomibunchoo C, Laovirojjanakul W. Blood culture bottles are superior to conventional media for vitreous culture. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2016;44(6):488-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/ceo.12707Links ]

10. Chaib AR, Freitas D, Scarpi MJ, Guidugli T. [Laboratory findings in endophthalmitis]. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 1997;60(3):250-7. https://doi.org/10.5935/0004-2749.19970056Links ]

11. Kunimoto DY, Das T, Sharma S, Jalali S, Majji AB, Gopinathan U, et al. Microbiologic spectrum and susceptibility of isolates: part II. Posttraumatic endophthalmitis. Endophthalmitis Research Group. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999;128(2):242-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9394(99)00113-0Links ]

12. Anand AR, Madhavan HN, Therese KL. Use of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and DNA probe hybridization to determine the Gram reaction of the infecting bacterium in the intraocular fluids of patients with endophthalmitis. J Infect. 2000;41(3):221-6. https://doi.org/10.1053/jinf.2000.0731Links ]

13. Lohmann CP, Linde HJ, Reischl U. Improved detection of microorganisms by polymerase chain reaction in delayed endophthalmitis after cataract surgery. Ophthalmology. 2000;107(6):1047-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(00)00083-XLinks ]

14. Uesugui E, Cypel-Gomes MC, Atique D, Goulart DG, Gallucci FR, Nishiwaki-Dantas MC, et al. [Laboratory identification of the most frequent ocular pathogens and their in vitro sensitivity to antibiotics]. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2002;65(3):339-42. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0004-27492002000300011Links ]

15. Saraiva FP, Costa PG, Inomata DL, Preti RC, Helal Jr J, Nakashima Y. Perfil clínico dos pacientes portadores de endoftalmite internados no Hospital das Clínicas de São Paulo. Rev Bras Oftalmol. 2007;66(3):169-74. [ Links ]

16. Melo GB, Bispo PJ, Regatieri CV, Yu MC, Pignatari AC, Höfling-Lima AL. Incidence of endophthalmitis after cataract surgery (2002-2008) at a Brazilian university-hospital. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2010;73(6):505-7. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0004-27492010000600007Links ]

17. Bispo PJ, Höfling-Lima AL, Pignatari AC. Molecular biology applied to the laboratory diagnosis of bacterial endophthalmitis. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2009;72(5):734-40. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0004-27492009000500028Links ]

18. Church DL, Davies HD, Cadrain G, Trevenen CL. Comparative study of three different BACTEC culture media for the detection of bacteremia in ambulatory and hospitalized children. Can J Infect Dis. 1998;9(2):77-82. https://doi.org/10.1155/1998/603898Links ]

19. Joondeph BC, Flynn HW Jr, Miller D, Joondeph HC. A new culture method for infectious endophthalmitis. Arch Ophthalmol. 1989;107(9):1334-7. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1989.01070020404044Links ]

20. Eser I, Kapran Z, Altan T, Eren H, Yilmaz OF. The use of blood culture bottles in endophthalmitis. Retina. 2007;27(7):971-3. https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0b013e31802bfe04Links ]

21. Rachitskaya AV, Flynn HW Jr, Wong J, Kuriyan AE, Miller D. A 10-year study of membrane filter system versus blood culture bottles in culturing vitrectomy cassette vitreous in infectious endophthalmitis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;156(2):349-354.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2013.03.040Links ]

22. Kehrmann J, Chapot V, Buer J, Rating P, Bornfeld N, Steinmann J. Diagnostic performance of blood culture bottles for vitreous culture compared to conventional microbiological cultures in patients with suspected endophthalmitis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2018;37(5):889-95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-017-3182-6Links ]

23. Chiquet C, Maurin M, Thuret G, Benito Y, Cornut PL, Creuzot-Garcher C, et al. Analysis of diluted vitreous samples from vitrectomy is useful in eyes with severe acute postoperative endophthalmitis. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(12):2437-41.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.06.007Links ]

Received: May 27, 2018; Accepted: December 07, 2018

* Corresponding author: E-mail: tatiana.tanaka@hc.fm.usp.br

No potential conflict of interest was reported.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Tanaka T helped to design the study, collected samples, collected microbiology data, and drafted and reviewed the manuscript. Ferreira BFA, Kato JM and Oliveira LMS collected samples and microbiology data. Gioia TSR, Rossi F, Pimentel SLG and Nakashima Y drafted and reviewed the manuscript. Yamamoto JH and Almeida Junior JN helped to design the study, conducted the statistical analysis, and drafted and reviewed the manuscript.

Creative Commons License This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.