4.4 Article

INTRAVITREAL DEXAMETHASONE IMPLANT IN PATIENTS WITH RANIBIZUMAB PERSISTENT DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA

Journal

RETINA-THE JOURNAL OF RETINAL AND VITREOUS DISEASES
Volume 35, Issue 7, Pages 1429-1435

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000000490

Keywords

anti-VEGF; central macular thickness; dexamethasone; diabetic macular edema; diabetic retinopathy

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose:To study the efficacy of intravitreal injection (IVI) of dexamethasone implant as second-line treatment in patients with resistant chronic diabetic macular edema nonresponsive to 6 monthly consecutive IVI of ranibizumab.Methods:A retrospective study was conducted over 9 months. Best-corrected visual acuity and central macular thickness were noted. Patients with best-corrected visual acuity 20/40 using Snellen chart, central macular thickness 300 m, and poor response to 6 monthly consecutive IVI of ranibizumab were included. Patients received IVI of dexamethasone implant and were examined at 1, 3, 6, and 9 months.Results:Thirteen eyes of 12 patients were included (6 men and 6 women; mean age, 64 7.8 years). Best-corrected visual acuity increased by a mean of 5.58 letters at Month 1 (P = 0.017), 4.61 at Month 3 (P = 0.05), 4.61 at Month 6 (P = 0.042), and 5.77 at Month 9 (P = 0.017). Central macular thickness decreased from 594 m to 402 m at Month 1 (P = 0.0002), 428 m at Month 3 (P = 0.002), 459 m at Month 6 (P = 0.02), and 489 m at Month 9 (P = 0.03). Mean number of dexamethasone IVI was 1.07. Two patients (15.3%) developed elevated intraocular pressure, and 1 patient was operated for cataract at 6 months (9% of phakic patients).Conclusion:Intravitreal injection of dexamethasone implant seems as an effective second-line treatment in diabetic macular edema persistent after 6 monthly consecutive intravitreal ranibizumab injections in real life.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available