4.6 Article

Vitreous levels of angiopoietin 2 and vascular endothelial growth factor in patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 139, Issue 3, Pages 476-481

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2004.10.004

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

center dot PURPOSE: To investigate the levels of angiopoietin-2 (Ang2) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in the vitreous fluids of patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) and to ascertain their involvement, if any, in angiogenesis of PDR. center dot DESIGN: Retrospective case-control study. center dot METHODS: Forty-one eyes of 41 patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy and 18 eyes of 18 patients with nondiabetic ocular diseases (control group). Nondiabetic control eyes included 11 with idiopathic macular hole and 7 with idiopathic epiretinal membrane. Vitreous fluid samples were obtained at vitrectomy, and the levels of Ang2 and VEGF were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. center dot RESULTS: Vitreous level (mean +/- SD) of Ang2 was significantly higher in patients with PDR (1,753 +/- 3,213 pg/ml) than in control patients (112 +/- 113 pg/ml) (P <.0001). The vitreous concentration of VEGF was also significantly higher in patients with PDR (812 +/- 1,108 pg/ml) than in control patients (1.7 +/- 4.4 pg/ml) (P <.0001). Both Ang2 and VEGF levels in eyes with active PDR were significantly higher than in those with inactive PDR. The vitreous concentration of Ang2 correlated significantly with that of VEGF in eyes with proliferative diabetic retincipathy ([correlation coefficient] P = 0.497, P= .001). center dot CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate an increase of Ang2 in the vitreous fluid of patients with PDR and suggest an association of Ang2 and VEGF with angiogenic activity in PDR. (c) 2005 by Elsevier Inc. 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

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available