4.0 Article

Comparison between early or late intravitreal injection of dexamethasone implant in branch (BRVO) or central (CRVO) retinal vein occlusion: six-months follow-up

Journal

CUTANEOUS AND OCULAR TOXICOLOGY
Volume 36, Issue 3, Pages 224-230

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/15569527.2016.1254648

Keywords

BRVO; CRVO; dexamethasone implant; intravitreal; retinal vein occlusion

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: The aim of this study was to compare early and late injections of intravitreal dexamethasone implant in patients affected by central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) or branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) with a six-months follow-up. We assessed whether an earlier treatment start (within seven days from diagnosis) could be more beneficial than a delayed (or late) treatment start (after seven days).Materials and methods: The study included 81 patients (81 eyes) affected by retinal vein occlusion. Best corrected visual acuity was assessed through Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) while central macular thickness (CMT) was measured by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography.Results: Both types of patients had a positive therapeutic response to dexamethasone, with an increase in visual acuity (ETDRS) and CMT reduction. CRVO patients were characterized by lower ETDRS values at baseline and at the end of the follow-up as compared to BRVO. CRVO patients showed higher CMT values at baseline, after three and six months from injection. No significant differences in therapeutic response to dexamethasone were observed between patients treated early or late, regardless of RVO type.Conclusions: This study demonstrates that the therapeutic properties of dexamethasone implant are not significantly influenced by an early or late treatment start in patients affected by BRVO and CRVO, although its therapeutic efficacy seems greater in the former type.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available