A presentation of culture-positive corneal donors and the effect on clinical outcomes
Donor-to-host transmission of infectious agents is a rare but well-recognised complication of corneal transplantation and may carry a grave visual prognosis. In this case series, we describe the clinical features and risk factors of using culture-positive donor corneas for transplantation.
Retrospective chart review of a series of patients who underwent either penetrating keratoplasty (PK) or Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) with positive microbiology cultivation during routine assessment of donor corneal tissue obtained at the time of surgery. Donor and recipient characteristics, tissue preparation and surgical parameters, clinical signs and outcomes were registered.
Eleven patients who received culture-positive corneal grafts were identified: six with Candida, three with Gram-positive bacteria and two with Gram-negative bacteria. Three patients developed clinical keratitis after routine DSAEK using corneas contaminated with Candida species. The median death-to-preservation time (DPT) of these three donor corneas was 18.08 (range 18.08 to 20.90) h, while in the remaining eight donors, it was 12.27 (range 9.32 to 20.47) h. Despite the initiation of antifungal treatment, all three cases required explantation of the graft and a subsequent re-DSAEK.
The use of donor corneas that are culture-positive for Candida carries a risk for developing postoperative keratitis and the risk may be higher in DSAEK. Unlike the cold storage technique employed for donor corneas described in this case series, organ culture technique requires microbiological screening and supplementation of an antifungal agent which may reduce the risk of donor-to-host transmission of fungal infection.
KeywordsKeratoplasty Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty Corneal donor tissue contamination Fungal keratitis Eye banking
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 3.Lass JH, Szczotka-Flynn LB, Ayala AR, Benetz BA, Gal RL, Aldave AJ, Corrigan MM, Dunn SP, TL MC, Pramanik S, Rosenwasser GO, Ross KW, Terry MA, Verdier DD, Writing Committee for the Cornea Preservation Time Study G (2015) Cornea preservation time study: methods and potential impact on the cornea donor pool in the United States. Cornea 34(6):601–608. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0000000000000417 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Linke SJ, Fricke OH, Eddy MT, Bednarz J, Druchkiv V, Kaulfers PM, Wulff B, Puschel K, Richard G, Hellwinkel OJ (2013) Risk factors for donor cornea contamination: retrospective analysis of 4546 procured corneas in a single eye bank. Cornea 32(2):141–148. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0b013e31825d586b CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Mian SI, Aldave AJ, Tu EY, Ayres BD, Jeng BH, Macsai MS, Nordlund ML, Penta JG, Pramanik S, Szczotka-Flynn LB, Ayala AR, Liang W, Maguire MG, Lass JH (2018) Incidence and outcomes of positive donor rim cultures and infections in the cornea preservation time study. Cornea 37(9):1102–1109. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0000000000001654 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Yamazoe K, Den S, Yamaguchi T, Tanaka Y, Shimazaki J (2011) Severe donor-related Candida keratitis after Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 249(10):1579–1582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-011-1710-0
- 17.Vislisel JM, Goins KM, Wagoner MD, Schmidt GA, Aldrich BT, Skeie JM, Reed CR, Zimmerman MB, Greiner MA (2017) Incidence and outcomes of positive donor corneoscleral rim fungal cultures after keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 124(1):36–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.09.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Berson EL, Kobayashi GS, Becker B, Rosenbaum L (1967) Topical corticosteroids and fungal keratitis. Investig Ophthalmol 6(5):512–517Google Scholar
- 23.O'Day DM, Ray WA, Head WS, Robinson RD (1984) Influence of the corneal epithelium on the efficacy of topical antifungal agents. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 25(7):855–859Google Scholar
- 27.Ratra D, Saurabh K, Das D, Nachiappan K, Nagpal A, Rishi E, Bhende P, Sharma T, Gopal L (2015) Endogenous endophthalmitis: a 10-year retrospective study at a tertiary hospital in South India. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila) 4(5):286–292. https://doi.org/10.1097/APO.0000000000000120
- 29.Aldave AJ, DeMatteo J, Glasser DB, Tu EY, Iliakis B, Nordlund ML, Misko J, Verdier DD, Yu F (2013) Report of the Eye Bank Association of America medical advisory board subcommittee on fungal infection after corneal transplantation. Cornea 32(2):149–154. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0b013e31825e83bf CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Layer N, Cevallos V, Maxwell AJ, Hoover C, Keenan JD, Jeng BH (2014) Efficacy and safety of antifungal additives in Optisol-GS corneal storage medium. JAMA Ophthalmol 132(7):832–837. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.397
- 32.Duncan K, Parker J, Hoover C, Jeng BH (2016) The effect of light exposure on the efficacy and safety of amphotericin B in corneal storage media. JAMA Ophthalmol 134(4):432–436. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.0008