Cargando…

The value of corneoscleral rim cultures in keratoplasty: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the performance of donor corneoscleral rim cultures for predicting infection after corneal transplantation, and determines if there is a correlation between positive corneoscleral rim cultures and postkeratoplasty infection. DESIGN AND DATA SOURCES: This was a systemati...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kiatos, Efstathia, Armstrong, James J, Hutnik, Cindy ML, Tsioros, Stephen M, Malvankar-Mehta, Monali S, Hodge, William G
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5557112/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28848354
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S139949
_version_ 1783257164951846912
author Kiatos, Efstathia
Armstrong, James J
Hutnik, Cindy ML
Tsioros, Stephen M
Malvankar-Mehta, Monali S
Hodge, William G
author_facet Kiatos, Efstathia
Armstrong, James J
Hutnik, Cindy ML
Tsioros, Stephen M
Malvankar-Mehta, Monali S
Hodge, William G
author_sort Kiatos, Efstathia
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: This study evaluated the performance of donor corneoscleral rim cultures for predicting infection after corneal transplantation, and determines if there is a correlation between positive corneoscleral rim cultures and postkeratoplasty infection. DESIGN AND DATA SOURCES: This was a systematic review, prognostic accuracy analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis. Databases searched were: Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and BioSis Previews. Grey literature was also explored. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to locate published and unpublished studies. All studies examining corneal button contamination and its association with endophthalmitis and keratitis posttransplantation were included. Extracted data were used to calculate sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. Cost data from the London Laboratory Services Group in London, ON were used to calculate the cost-effectiveness of culturing donor rim cultures. RESULTS: Of 7,870 grafts, 954 had a positive rim culture (12.1%), with 12 patients going on to develop keratitis or endophthalmitis (1.3%). The prevalence of keratitis and endophthalmitis in this study was 0.15%, and the positive predictive value 1.5%. Of the 12 infections, nine were fungal and three bacterial. The estimated cost of a positive and negative test result was CAD$45.99 and $14.15, respectively. The cost to run all 7,870 tests was estimated to be $141,735.86, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $40,215.70. CONCLUSION: There was a significant divergence between bacterial and fungal rim-culture results. Bacterial cultures predicted clinical infection poorly, did not change management, and were expensive. Fungal cultures predicted clinical infection in over 10% of patients, had the potential to change management, and were 40% less expensive than full rim culturing (bacterial and fungal tests). Fungal rim cultures may be considered in areas where fungal infection rates are high.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5557112
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55571122017-08-28 The value of corneoscleral rim cultures in keratoplasty: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis Kiatos, Efstathia Armstrong, James J Hutnik, Cindy ML Tsioros, Stephen M Malvankar-Mehta, Monali S Hodge, William G Clinicoecon Outcomes Res Review PURPOSE: This study evaluated the performance of donor corneoscleral rim cultures for predicting infection after corneal transplantation, and determines if there is a correlation between positive corneoscleral rim cultures and postkeratoplasty infection. DESIGN AND DATA SOURCES: This was a systematic review, prognostic accuracy analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis. Databases searched were: Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and BioSis Previews. Grey literature was also explored. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to locate published and unpublished studies. All studies examining corneal button contamination and its association with endophthalmitis and keratitis posttransplantation were included. Extracted data were used to calculate sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. Cost data from the London Laboratory Services Group in London, ON were used to calculate the cost-effectiveness of culturing donor rim cultures. RESULTS: Of 7,870 grafts, 954 had a positive rim culture (12.1%), with 12 patients going on to develop keratitis or endophthalmitis (1.3%). The prevalence of keratitis and endophthalmitis in this study was 0.15%, and the positive predictive value 1.5%. Of the 12 infections, nine were fungal and three bacterial. The estimated cost of a positive and negative test result was CAD$45.99 and $14.15, respectively. The cost to run all 7,870 tests was estimated to be $141,735.86, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $40,215.70. CONCLUSION: There was a significant divergence between bacterial and fungal rim-culture results. Bacterial cultures predicted clinical infection poorly, did not change management, and were expensive. Fungal cultures predicted clinical infection in over 10% of patients, had the potential to change management, and were 40% less expensive than full rim culturing (bacterial and fungal tests). Fungal rim cultures may be considered in areas where fungal infection rates are high. Dove Medical Press 2017-08-09 /pmc/articles/PMC5557112/ /pubmed/28848354 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S139949 Text en © 2017 Kiatos et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.
spellingShingle Review
Kiatos, Efstathia
Armstrong, James J
Hutnik, Cindy ML
Tsioros, Stephen M
Malvankar-Mehta, Monali S
Hodge, William G
The value of corneoscleral rim cultures in keratoplasty: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis
title The value of corneoscleral rim cultures in keratoplasty: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis
title_full The value of corneoscleral rim cultures in keratoplasty: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis
title_fullStr The value of corneoscleral rim cultures in keratoplasty: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis
title_full_unstemmed The value of corneoscleral rim cultures in keratoplasty: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis
title_short The value of corneoscleral rim cultures in keratoplasty: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis
title_sort value of corneoscleral rim cultures in keratoplasty: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5557112/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28848354
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S139949
work_keys_str_mv AT kiatosefstathia thevalueofcorneoscleralrimculturesinkeratoplastyasystematicreviewandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT armstrongjamesj thevalueofcorneoscleralrimculturesinkeratoplastyasystematicreviewandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT hutnikcindyml thevalueofcorneoscleralrimculturesinkeratoplastyasystematicreviewandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT tsiorosstephenm thevalueofcorneoscleralrimculturesinkeratoplastyasystematicreviewandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT malvankarmehtamonalis thevalueofcorneoscleralrimculturesinkeratoplastyasystematicreviewandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT hodgewilliamg thevalueofcorneoscleralrimculturesinkeratoplastyasystematicreviewandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT kiatosefstathia valueofcorneoscleralrimculturesinkeratoplastyasystematicreviewandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT armstrongjamesj valueofcorneoscleralrimculturesinkeratoplastyasystematicreviewandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT hutnikcindyml valueofcorneoscleralrimculturesinkeratoplastyasystematicreviewandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT tsiorosstephenm valueofcorneoscleralrimculturesinkeratoplastyasystematicreviewandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT malvankarmehtamonalis valueofcorneoscleralrimculturesinkeratoplastyasystematicreviewandcosteffectivenessanalysis
AT hodgewilliamg valueofcorneoscleralrimculturesinkeratoplastyasystematicreviewandcosteffectivenessanalysis