4.6 Article

Intraocular pressure alterations following intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 90, Issue 8, Pages 999-1003

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2006.090340

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NEI NIH HHS [R03 EY013997, EY 13997-01] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: To determine the prevalence of intraocular pressure (IOP) alterations following intravitreal injection of triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA) and to assess possible risk factors of IOP elevation in eyes receiving single and/or repeat injections. Methods: Retrospective, consecutive case series. 570 consecutive eyes of 536 patients who received a single IVTA injection (4 mg/0.1 ml) and a second set of 43 eyes of 40 patients who received a second injection. Retrospective review of all IVTA cases performed by three vitreoretinal surgeons over a 42 month period beginning in 2000. The main outcome measure was change in IOP defined as absolute value of IOP elevation (5 mm Hg or higher, 10 mmHg or higher), and percentage of baseline (30% or higher increase from baseline IOP). Results: Of the 528 eyes receiving single injections, 281 (53.2%) had an IOP elevation; 267 eyes (50.6%) experienced an elevation of IOP of at least 30%, and 245 (45.8%) and 75 (14.2%) eyes had an increase of 5 mmHg or 10 mmHg or more, respectively. Baseline IOP greater than 16 mmHg is a risk factor for post-injection IOP elevation. Of the 43 eyes which received a second injection, 28 (65.1%) experienced an increase in IOP of at least 30% of baseline. Filtering surgery was required in five (0.094%) of the single and one (2.3%) of repeat injection eyes. Conclusions: Elevated IOP after IVTA is common and patients should be monitored beyond 6 months post-injection. Patients with a baseline IOP more than 16 mmHg or receiving a second injection should be carefully monitored for an elevated IOP.

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