Jens Andresen

Post-cataract Prevention of Inflammation and Macular Edema by Steroid and Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Eye Drops: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE Favorable outcome after cataract surgery depends on proper control of the inflammatory response induced by cataract surgery. Pseudophakic cystoid macular edema is an important cause of visual decline after uncomplicated cataract surgery. DESIGN We compared the efficacy of topical steroids with topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in controlling inflammation and preventing pseudophakic cystoid macular edema (PCME) after uncomplicated cataract surgery. PARTICIPANTS Patients undergoing uncomplicated surgery for age-related cataract. METHODS We performed a systematic literature search in Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases to identify randomized trials published from 1996 onward comparing topical steroids with topical NSAIDs in controlling inflammation and preventing PCME in patients undergoing phacoemulsification with posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation for age-related cataract. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Postoperative inflammation and pseudophakic cystoid macular edema. RESULTS Fifteen randomized trials were identified. Postoperative inflammation was less in patients randomized to NSAIDs. The prevalence of PCME was significantly higher in the steroid group than in the NSAID group: 3.8% versus 25.3% of patients, risk ratio 5.35 (95% confidence interval, 2.94-9.76). There was no statistically significant difference in the number of adverse events in the 2 treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS We found low to moderate quality of evidence that topical NSAIDs are more effective in controlling postoperative inflammation after cataract surgery. We found high-quality evidence that topical NSAIDs are more effective than topical steroids in preventing PCME. The use of topical NSAIDs was not associated with an increased events. We recommend using topical NSAIDs to prevent inflammation and PCME after routine cataract surgery.

Antibiotic prevention of postcataract endophthalmitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Endophthalmitis is one of the most feared complications after cataract surgery. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of intracameral and topical antibiotics on the prevention of endophthalmitis after cataract surgery. A systematic literature review in the MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and EMBASE databases revealed one randomized trial and 17 observational studies concerning the prophylactic effect of intracameral antibiotic administration on the rate of endophthalmitis after cataract surgery. The effect of topical antibiotics on endophthalmitis rate was reported by one randomized trial and one observational study. The quality and design of the included studies were analysed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The quality of the evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. We found high‐to‐moderate quality evidence for a marked reduction in the risk of endophthalmitis with the use of intracameral antibiotic administration of cefazolin, cefuroxime and moxifloxacin, whereas no effect was found with the use of topical antibiotics or intracameral vancomycin. Endophthalmitis occurred on average in one of 2855 surgeries when intracameral antibiotics were used compared to one of 485 surgeries when intracameral antibiotics were not used. The relative risk (95% CI) of endophthalmitis was reduced to 0.12 (0.08; 0.18) when intracameral antibiotics were used. The difference was highly significant (p < 0.00001). Intracameral antibiotic therapy is the best choice for preventing endophthalmitis after cataract surgery. We did not find evidence to conclude that topical antibiotic therapy prevents endophthalmitis.

Indication for cataract surgery. Do we have evidence of who will benefit from surgery? A systematic review and meta‐analysis

The need for cataract surgery is expected to rise dramatically in the future due to the increasing proportion of elderly citizens and increasing demands for optimum visual function. The aim of this study was to provide an evidence‐based recommendation for the indication of cataract surgery based on which group of patients are most likely to benefit from surgery. A systematic literature search was performed in the MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and COCHRANE LIBRARY databases. Studies evaluating the outcome after cataract surgery according to preoperative visual acuity and visual complaints were included in a meta‐analysis. We identified eight observational studies comparing outcome after cataract surgery in patients with poor (<20/40) and fair (>20/40) preoperative visual acuity. We could not find any studies that compared outcome after cataract surgery in patients with few or many preoperative visual complaints. A meta‐analysis showed that the outcome of cataract surgery, evaluated as objective and subjective visual improvement, was independent on preoperative visual acuity. There is a lack of scientific evidence to guide the clinician in deciding which patients are most likely to benefit from surgery. To overcome this shortage of evidence, many systems have been developed internationally to prioritize patients on waiting lists for cataract surgery, but the Swedish NIKE (Nationell Indikationsmodell för Katarakt Ekstraktion) is the only system where an association to the preoperative scoring of a patient has been related to outcome of cataract surgery. We advise that clinicians are inspired by the NIKE system when they decide which patients to operate to ensure that surgery is only offered to patients who are expected to benefit from cataract surgery.

Cataract surgery and age‐related macular degeneration. An evidence‐based update

Age‐related macular degeneration (AMD) and cataract often coexist in patients and concerns that cataract surgery is associated with an increased risk of incidence or progression of existing AMD has been raised. This systematic review and meta‐analysis is focused on presenting the evidence concerning progression of AMD in patients undergoing cataract surgery.

Do evidence‐based guidelines change clinical practice patterns?

In 2013, the Danish Health and Medicines Authorities published a National Clinical Guideline on the treatment of age‐related cataracts. The guideline provided evidence‐based recommendations on the indication for cataract surgery, cataract surgery in patients with age‐related macular degeneration, on the use of toric intraocular lenses (IOLs) to correct preoperative corneal astigmatism, the use of intracameral and topical antibiotics to prevent endophthalmitis, choice of anti‐inflammatory medication to control postoperative inflammation and prevent cystoid macular oedema, the use of immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery and on the postoperative check‐up of patients. A questionnaire was sent to all members of the Danish Ophthalmological Society before and after publication of the guideline. The responses showed that the guideline had changed practice patterns so that surgeons were more likely to prescribe non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory eye drops and to not prescribe topical antibiotic eye drops after the guideline was published. Other parameters, most notably the use of toric IOLs and use of postoperative examinations were more guided by reimbursement standards than by evidence‐based medicine. Thus, evidence‐based guidelines do change practice patterns unless they are counteracted by the reimbursement system.

Immediate Sequential Bilateral Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The aim of the present systematic review was to examine the benefits and harms associated with immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS) with specific emphasis on the rate of complications, postoperative anisometropia, and subjective visual function in order to formulate evidence-based national Danish guidelines for cataract surgery. A systematic literature review in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane central databases identified three randomized controlled trials that compared outcome in patients randomized to ISBCS or bilateral cataract surgery on two different dates. Meta-analyses were performed using the Cochrane Review Manager software. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE method (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). We did not find any difference in the risk of complications or visual outcome in patients randomized to ISBCS or surgery on two different dates. The quality of evidence was rated as low to very low. None of the studies reported the prevalence of postoperative anisometropia. In conclusion, we cannot provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of ISBCS due to the lack of high quality evidence. Therefore, the decision to perform ISBCS should be taken after careful discussion between the surgeon and the patient.

Safety of deferring review after uneventful cataract surgery until 2 weeks postoperatively

&NA; We conducted a systematic review and metaanalysis to provide evidence‐based recommendations on the value of early postoperative review. We identified 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared patients seen on the first postoperative day with those reviewed at 2 weeks; the 3 studies comprised 886 patients. The risk for postoperative complications was lower when review was deferred 2 weeks because of early transient pressure spikes. There was no difference in the number of unscheduled visits during the first 2 weeks postoperatively or the visual acuity at follow‐up. No safety was gained by reviewing patients on the first postoperative day, and we recommend that routine early postoperative control can be omitted in nonglaucomatous patients after uneventful surgery if symptomatic patients are seen by an ophthalmologist as needed. Financial Disclosure No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

The Danish Registry of Diabetic Retinopathy

Aim of database To monitor the development of diabetic eye disease in Denmark and to evaluate the accessibility and effectiveness of diabetic eye screening programs with focus on interregional variations. Target population The target population includes all patients diagnosed with diabetes. Denmark (5.5 million inhabitants) has ~320,000 diabetes patients with an annual increase of 27,000 newly diagnosed patients. The Danish Registry of Diabetic Retinopathy (DiaBase) collects data on all diabetes patients aged ≥18 years who attend screening for diabetic eye disease in hospital eye departments and in private ophthalmological practice. In 2014–2015, DiaBase included data collected from 77,968 diabetes patients. Main variables The main variables provide data for calculation of performance indicators to monitor the quality of diabetic eye screening and development of diabetic retinopathy. Data with respect to age, sex, best corrected visual acuity, screening frequency, grading of diabetic retinopathy and maculopathy at each visit, progression/regression of diabetic eye disease, and prevalence of blindness were obtained. Data analysis from DiaBase’s latest annual report (2014–2015) indicates that the prevalence of no diabetic retinopathy, nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy, and proliferative diabetic retinopathy is 78%, 18%, and 4%, respectively. The percentage of patients without diabetic maculopathy is 97%. The proportion of patients with regression of diabetic retinopathy (20%) is greater than the proportion of patients with progression of diabetic retinopathy (10%). Conclusion The collection of data from diabetic eye screening is still expanding in Denmark. Analysis of the data collected during the period 2014–2015 reveals an overall decrease of diabetic retinopathy compared to the previous year, although the number of patients newly diagnosed with diabetes has been increasing in Denmark. DiaBase is a useful tool to observe the quality of screening, prevalence, and progression/regression of diabetic eye disease.

Evidence-based Danish guidelines for screening of diabetic retinopathy

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is among the leading causes of visual loss in the working‐age population. It is generally accepted that screening of DR is cost‐effective and can detect DR before it becomes sight‐threatening to allow timely treatment.