3.9 Article

Ocular manifestations of Crohn's disease

Journal

JOURNAL FRANCAIS D OPHTALMOLOGIE
Volume 43, Issue 10, Pages 1047-1053

Publisher

MASSON EDITEUR
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfo.2020.02.006

Keywords

Intravitreal injections; Anti-VEGF; Patient; Stress; Anxiety; AMD

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Intravitreal anti-vascular epithelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections have revolutionised the treatment of macular diseases, but can be stressful for the patient. We surveyed 904 patients receiving injections at 5 centres in France regarding their feelings toward anti-VEGF injections. The mean age was 77.4 years, and the injections were performed mostly for age related macular degeneration (72%). Half of the patients had previously received > 10 injections, 35.6% had received 3-10 injections, and 14.2% had received < 3 injections. The mean (SD) stress score was 4.2 [on a scale from 1-10 (0 = least stressful, 10 = extremely stressful)]. Most patients (70%) reported low to moderate stress (score <= 5). The number of previous injections did not influence stress scores. Paradoxically, 61.2% of patients reported finding injections to be less stressful over time. Most patients found injections to be less traumatic than expected (64%) or just as they had anticipated (25%). Most patients (88%) were not bothered by the presence of other patients in the waiting room. Most patients (78.8%) preferred to be injected quickly before they had time to feel stressed about the procedure. Injections were generally well accepted; most patients would prefer to maintain their current schedule of injections and their current vision (55.7%), or would be willing to have more frequent injections for better vision (39.5%). Our results suggest that stress appears to be more related to the patient's psychological make-up than to the treatment experience or the number of injections received. (C) 2020 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available