Evidence Hub

An 11-year analysis of microbial keratitis in the South West of England using brain-heart infusion broth

Tavassoli S, Nayar G, Darcy K, Grzeda M, Luck J, Williams OM, Tole D

Eye (London, England), 2019

2,116 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were to identify the organisms responsible for microbial keratitis, as identified by corneal scrape using brain-heart infusion broth, trends over time and antimicrobial sensitivities, over an 11-year period at two eye units in the South West of England; Bristol Eye Hospital and Royal United Hospital, Bath.

METHODS: All corneal scrapes performed and sent for microbiological analysis between 4th April 2006 and 31st October 2017 at the two eye units were retrospectively reviewed. First-line treatment was monotherapy with levofloxacin 0.5% and second-line treatment was a combination of cefuroxime 5% and gentamicin 1.5%. Both direct and enrichment cultures were used.

RESULTS: In total, 2614 corneal scrapes from 2116 patients (1082 female, mean age 47.7 ± 21.2 years) were identified. 38.1% (n = 996) were culture positive and 1195 organisms were cultured. In all, 91.6% were bacteria (69.4% were gram-positive, 30.6% gram-negative). Coagulase-negative Staphylococci (CoNS) were the most commonly cultured organism (n = 430). Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the most commonly identified gram-negative organism (n = 189). In total, 6.9% (n = 83) of organisms cultured were fungi. In all, 1.4% (n = 17) were acanthamoeba. There was no statistically significant trend in the organisms observed over the study period. Sensitivity testing confirmed reasonable sensitivity to the empiric antibiotics used in clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS: This is the first report on…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 2,116 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free