4.6 Article

Long-term follow-up of management of choroidal neovascularisation secondary to angioid streaks with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor

Journal

EYE
Volume 35, Issue 3, Pages 853-857

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41433-020-0979-9

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
  2. UCL Institute of Ophthalmology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aims to assess the short-term and long-term visual outcomes of patients with CNV secondary to angioid streaks treated with anti-VEGF. Results show that anti-VEGF therapy can stabilize visual acuity, but there is a gradual decline observed with 5-10 years of follow-up, with subfoveal CNV showing worse visual outcomes.
Purpose To assess the short-term and long-term visual outcomes in patients with choroidal neovascularisation (CNV) secondary to angioid streaks treated with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). Methods Retrospective, single-centre study. Results Overall 66 eyes of 52 patients were analysed. Follow-up ranged from 1 to 10 years. BCVA was 62 ETDRS letters at baseline, 68 letters at 1 year, 60 ETDRS letters at 5 years and 58 letters at 7 years. At 2 years patients gained 5.7 ETDRS letters from baseline but this gain was lost at 5 years. At 5 years there was an average loss of ETDRS letters from baseline of 3.3 letters. Sub-group analysis of subfoveal CNV showed worse outcome compared with eyes with extrafoveal and juxtafoveal CNV. In subfoveal CNV, BCVA was 53 ETDRS letters at 1 year (p < 0.0001) and 39 ETDRS at 5 years (p = 0.0005). Conclusion Anti-VEGF therapy is effective at stabilising visual acuity in patients with choroidal neovascularisation secondary to angiod streaks, however there is a gradual decline in visual acuity observed with 5-10 years of follow-up. Furthermore, subfoveal CNV have worse visual outcome compared with extrafoveal and juxtafoveal CNV.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available