We have located links that may give you full text access.
The Susceptibility of Bacterial Endophthalmitis Isolates to Vancomycin, Ceftazidime, and Amikacin: a 23 Year-Review.
Ophthalmology Retina 2017 May
PURPOSE: To investigate the in vitro susceptibility of Gram-positive and Gram-negative endophthalmitis bacterial isolates to vancomycin, amikacin, and ceftazidime over a 23-year period.
DESIGN: Retrospective non-comparative laboratory case series.
SUBJECTS: Endophthalmitis patients that were culture positive for bacteria.
METHODS: Laboratory records of bacteria isolated from endophthalmitis specimens collected from January 1st 1993 to December 31st 2015 were reviewed for incidence and standard susceptibility testing.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The in vitro susceptibilities of bacteria cultured from endophthalmitis to vancomycin (VAN), amikacin (AMK), and ceftazidime (CEF).
RESULTS: Patients with endophthalmitis were culture positive for bacteria in 665 cases.. Coagulase negative Staphylococci (CoNS) were the most common bacteria (54.6%), followed by Streptococci (Strep) species (20.8%), Staphylococcus aureus (SA) (10.2%), other Gram-positive (other-GP) bacteria (7.4%) and Gram-negative (GN) bacteria (7.1%). All Gram-positive organisms were susceptible to VAN, with the exception of 2 isolates. The in vitro susceptibilities of bacteria to AMK were: CoNS (95.3%), SA (75.0%), Strep (8.0%), GN (95.7%), and other-GP (81.1%). The in vitro susceptibilities of bacteria to CEF were: CoNS (58.5%), SA (54.4%), Strep (84.1%), GN (93.6.%), and other-GP (52.8%). There was no difference between AMK (95.7%) and CEF (93.6%) for GN coverage. AMK provided better coverage than CEF for CoNS, SA, and other-GP bacteria respectively (p<0.05, Fisher's exact), however, CEF appeared to provide better coverage (p<0.001, Fisher's exact) for Strep than AMK.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on standard in vitro susceptibility testing, vancomycin remains an optimal antibiotic choice for the treatment of Gram-positive endophthalmitis. AMK and CEF appear to provide equal GN coverage, but AMK appears to provide better coverage for CoNS, SA, and other-GP, but not Strep.
DESIGN: Retrospective non-comparative laboratory case series.
SUBJECTS: Endophthalmitis patients that were culture positive for bacteria.
METHODS: Laboratory records of bacteria isolated from endophthalmitis specimens collected from January 1st 1993 to December 31st 2015 were reviewed for incidence and standard susceptibility testing.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The in vitro susceptibilities of bacteria cultured from endophthalmitis to vancomycin (VAN), amikacin (AMK), and ceftazidime (CEF).
RESULTS: Patients with endophthalmitis were culture positive for bacteria in 665 cases.. Coagulase negative Staphylococci (CoNS) were the most common bacteria (54.6%), followed by Streptococci (Strep) species (20.8%), Staphylococcus aureus (SA) (10.2%), other Gram-positive (other-GP) bacteria (7.4%) and Gram-negative (GN) bacteria (7.1%). All Gram-positive organisms were susceptible to VAN, with the exception of 2 isolates. The in vitro susceptibilities of bacteria to AMK were: CoNS (95.3%), SA (75.0%), Strep (8.0%), GN (95.7%), and other-GP (81.1%). The in vitro susceptibilities of bacteria to CEF were: CoNS (58.5%), SA (54.4%), Strep (84.1%), GN (93.6.%), and other-GP (52.8%). There was no difference between AMK (95.7%) and CEF (93.6%) for GN coverage. AMK provided better coverage than CEF for CoNS, SA, and other-GP bacteria respectively (p<0.05, Fisher's exact), however, CEF appeared to provide better coverage (p<0.001, Fisher's exact) for Strep than AMK.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on standard in vitro susceptibility testing, vancomycin remains an optimal antibiotic choice for the treatment of Gram-positive endophthalmitis. AMK and CEF appear to provide equal GN coverage, but AMK appears to provide better coverage for CoNS, SA, and other-GP, but not Strep.
Full text links
Related Resources
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 
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