Intravitreal vancomycin and amikacin versus intravenous imipenem in the treatment of experimental Staphylococcus aureus endophthalmitis

  • Michael Engelbert
  • Herminia Miño de Kaspar
  • Martin Thiel
  • Thomas Grasbon
  • Christopher N. Ta
  • Markus Schulze-Schwering
  • Volker Klauss
  • Anselm Kampik
Laboratory Investigation

Abstract

Background: Controversy still surrounds the intravenous (IV) treatment of endophthalmitis. The purpose of this study was to compare IV and intraocular (IO) treatment in experimental Staphylococcus aureus endophthalmitis: intravitreal injection of vancomycin and amikacin (VA/AN) in comparison with IV imipenem (IPM) and a combination of IV and IO (IV+IO) therapy. Methods: The right eyes of 27 rabbits were injected with 25,000 S. aureus. After 24 h, animals were either treated with IO VA/AN (n=5; 1.0 mg/0.4 mg in 0.1 ml saline), or IV IPM (n=9; 37 mg/kg body weight 3× daily), or IV+IO therapy (n=7), or served as untreated controls (n=6). Clinical appearance was evaluated daily and vitreous aspirates were obtained for bacterial culture 24 h and 6 days after therapy, when the eyes were enucleated for histopathologic examination. Results: Eyes in the IO or IO+IV treatment group had a significantly better appearance clinically and histologically than did eyes in the IV or untreated control group. Eyes in the IO+IV group had a similar appearance to the IO-treated eyes. All aspirates from the IO and IO+IV groups were culture-negative 24 hours after therapy, whereas only five of nine in the IV-treated group were culture-negative. Aspirates from all treatment groups were culture-negative by day 6 after the initiation of therapy. Untreated control eyes were culture-positive at all times. Conclusion: IO therapy with VA/AN proved more effective in treating experimental S. aureus endophthalmitis than did IV therapy with IPM alone. IV+IO treatment was not superior to IO treatment alone.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Begonia Sesma Bea and her staff at the Instituto de Salud Publica, Juan Fernandez de las Casas de la Tejerinera and the personnel at the Unidad de Investigacion Biomedica of the Hospital de Navarra, and Rafael Iturralde at the Department of Ophthalmology, Hospital Virgen del Camino (all in Pamplona, Spain) for providing physical space and technical assistance with the animal work. We are grateful to Helga Treibs at the Laboratory for Histopathology at the University Eye Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany for technical assistance, and Yin Zhang at the College of Public Health, Oklahoma University Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA for help with the statistical analysis.

References

  1. 1.
    Aguilar HE, Meredith TA, El Massry A, Shaarawy A, Kincaid M, Dick J, Ritchie DJ, Reichley RM, Neisman MK (1995) Vancomycin levels after intravitreal injection. Effects of inflammation and surgery. Retina 15:428–432PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aguilar HE, Meredith TA, Shaarawy A, Kincaid M, Dick J (1995) Vitreous cavity penetration of ceftazidime after intravenous administration. Retina 15:154–159PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Axelrod JL, Newton JC, Klein RM, Bergen RL, Sheikh MZ (1987) Penetration of imipenem into human aqueous and vitreous humor. Am J Ophthalmol 104:649–653PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barza M, Baum J, Birkby B, Weinstein L (1973) Intraocular penetration of carbenicillin in the rabbit. Am J Ophthalmol 75:307–313Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Campochiaro PA, Conway BP (1991) Aminoglycoside toxicity—a survey of retinal specialists. Implications for ocular use. Arch Ophthalmol 109:946–950PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Campochiaro PA, Lim JI (1994) Aminoglycoside toxicity in the treatment of endophthalmitis. The Aminoglycoside Toxicity Study Group. Arch Ophthalmol 112:48–53PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cobo LM, Forster RK (1981) The clearance of intravitreal gentamicin. Am J Ophthalmol 92:59–62PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coles RS, Boyle GL, Leopold IH, Schneierson SS (1971) Lincomycin levels in rabbit ocular fluids and serum. Am J Ophthalmol 72:464–467PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eiferman RA, Stagner JI (1982) Intraocular penetration of amikacin. Iris binding and bioavailability. Arch Ophthalmol 100:1817–1819PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    El Baba FZ, Trousdale MD, Gauderman WJ, Wagner DG, Liggett PE (1992) Intravitreal penetration of oral ciprofloxacin in humans. Ophthalmology 99:483–486Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Engelbert M, Mino De Kaspar H, Mette M, Thiel M, Ta CN, Grasbon T, Schulze-Schwering M, Klauss V, Kampik A (2003) Intravenous treatment of experimental Staphylococcus aureus endopthalmitis: imipenem versus the combination of ceftazidime and amikacin. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 241(12):1029–1036CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fukuda M, Sasaki K (1992) The dynamics of melanin-affinitive and non-affinitive antibacterial agents in the iris-ciliary body of rabbit eyes—comparative studies in pigmented and albino rabbits. Nippon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi 96:1229–1233PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kasbeer RT, Peyman GA, May DR, Homer PI (1975) Penetration of amikacin into the aphakic eye. Graefes Arch Klin Exp Ophthalmol 196:85–94Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Koul S, Philipson A, Philipson BT, Kock E, Nylen P (1990) Intraocular levels of cefuroxime in uninflamed rabbit eyes. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 68:455–465Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Loewenstein A, Zemel E, Lazar M, Perlman I (1993) Drug-induced retinal toxicity in albino rabbits: the effects of imipenem and aztreonam. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 34:3466–3476PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mandell BA, Meredith TA, Aguilar E, El Massry A, Sawant A, Gardner S (1993) Effects of inflammation and surgery on amikacin levels in the vitreous cavity. Am J Ophthalmol 115:770–774PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Martin DF, Ficker LA, Aguilar HA, Gardner SK, Wilson LA, Meredith TA (1990) Vitreous cefazolin levels after intravenous injection. Effects of inflammation, repeated antibiotic doses, and surgery. Arch Ophthalmol 108:411–414PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meredith TA, Aguilar HE, Shaarawy A, Kincaid M, Dick J, Niesman MR (1995) Vancomycin levels in the vitreous cavity after intravenous administration. Am J Ophthalmol 119:774–778PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moody JA, Fasching CE, Peterson LR, Gerding DN (1987) Ceftazidime and amikacin alone and in combination against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacteriaceae. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 6:59–67PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Naib K, Hallet JW, Leopold IH (1955) Observations on the ocular effects of erythromycin. Am J Ophthalmol 39:395–399PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Neu HC, Labthavikul P (1982) Comparative in vitro activity of N-formimidoyl thienamycin against gram-positive and gram-negative aerobic and anaerobic species and its beta-lactamase stability. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 21:180–187PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peyman GA, Schulman JA (2002) Drug therapy for endophthalmitis. In: Peyman GA, Schulman JA (eds) Intravitreal surgery: principles and practice. Appleton and Lange, Norwalk, Conn., pp 100–150Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Peyman GA, May DR, Homer PI, Kasbeer RT (1977) Penetration of gentamicin into the aphakic eye. Ann Ophthalmol 9:871–880PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Records RE, Ellis PP (1967) The intraocular penetration of ampicillin, methicillin, and oxacillin. Am J Ophthalmol 64:135–143PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rubinstein E, Triester G, Avni I, Schwartzkopf R (1987) The intravitreal penetration of cefotaxime in man following systemic and subconjunctival administrations. Ophthalmology 94:30–34Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sakata Y, McCracken G H Jr, Thomas ML, Olsen KD (1984) Pharmacokinetics and therapeutic efficacy of imipenem, ceftazidime, and ceftriaxone in experimental meningitis due to an ampicillin- and chloramphenicol-resistant strain of Haemophilus influenzae type b. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 25:29–32PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shaarawy A, Grand MG, Meredith TA, Ibanez HE (1995) Persistent endophthalmitis after intravitreal antimicrobial therapy. Ophthalmology 102:382–387Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shockley RK, Fishman P, Aziz M, Yannis RA, Jay WM (1986) Subconjunctival administration of ceftazidime in pigmented rabbit eyes. Arch Ophthalmol 104:266–268PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sorsby A, Ungar J (1948) Distribution of penicillin in the eye after injections of 1,000,000 units by the subconjunctival, retrobulbar and intramuscular routes. Br J Ophthalmol 32:864–877Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Talamo JH, D’Amico DJ, Hanninen LA, Kenyon KR, Shanks ET (1985) The influence of aphakia and vitrectomy on experimental retinal toxicity of aminoglycoside antibiotics. Am J Ophthalmol 100:840–847PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    The Endophthalmitis Vitrectomy Study Group (1995) 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 113:1479–1496PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Engelbert
    • 1
  • Herminia Miño de Kaspar
    • 1
    • 2
  • Martin Thiel
    • 1
  • Thomas Grasbon
    • 1
  • Christopher N. Ta
    • 2
  • Markus Schulze-Schwering
    • 1
  • Volker Klauss
    • 1
  • Anselm Kampik
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologyLudwig-Maximilians-UniversitätMunichGermany
  2. 2.Department of Ophthalmology, Room A-157Stanford University, School of MedicineStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations