Safety of Receiving Anti–Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Intravitreal Injection in Office-Based vs Operating Room Settings: A Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE: Compared with the operating room (OR), office-based intravitreal injection (IVI) is considered a more cost-effective and convenient approach, yet clinical outcomes of IVIs with anti–vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents in different settings (office-based vs OR) have not been systematically evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety outcomes of IVI with anti-VEGF agents in the OR vs office-based setting. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to July 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies reporting on patients who received IVIs with anti-VEGF drugs with a clearly stated injection setting of the office or OR. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A meta-analysis was conducted to determine the rates of endophthalmitis (EO) and culture-positive EO. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Rates of EO and culture-positive EO following anti-VEGF IVIs in the OR and office-based setting. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies with a total of 1 275 815 injections were included. Comparative analysis suggested no difference between rates of EO after IVIs performed in the office and OR settings (odds ratio, 3.06; 95% CI, 0.07-139.75; P = .57; I2 = 80%) were identified, yet a higher rate of culture-positive EO was found in the office setting (odds ratio, 21.52; 95% CI, 2.39-193.55; P = .006; I2 = 0%). The pooled rates of EO following anti-VEGF IVIs were 0.03% (95% CI, 0.03-0.04) and 0.02% (95% CI, 0.01-0.04) in office and OR settings, respectively, and the pooled rates of culture-positive EO were 0.01% (95% CI, 0.01-0.02) and 0.01% (95% CI, 0-0.02). The pooled rates of other ocular and systemic adverse events were low. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The rate of clinically suspected or culture-positive EO following anti-VEGF IVIs was low whether the procedure was performed in the office or OR setting. Bacterial spectrum could differ between the 2 settings. This meta-analysis could not determine if it is more appropriate to give treatment in the OR for safety reasons in low-income compared with higher-income regions in the world.