4.4 Article

Surveillance for potential adverse events associated with the use of intravitreal bevacizumab for retinal and choroidal vascular disease

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0b013e31817e100f

关键词

adverse events; Avastin; bevacizumab; choroidal neovascularization; diabetic macular edema; macular degeneration; neovascular glaucoma; retinal pigment epithelial detachment; retinal pigment epithelial tear; retinal vascular occlusion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To systematically study potential adverse events associated with the use of intraocular bevacizumab at a single medical center. Methods: Retrospective study of all consecutive patients receiving intraocular bevacizumab injections at the Stanford University Department of Ophthalmology between November 15, 2005 and July 14, 2006. Bevacizumab was given for exudative age-related macular degeneration, retinal vascular occlusion, diabetic macular edema, neovascular glaucoma, and five other indications. Results: We analyzed medical records of 186 subjects (203 eyes) who received a total of 578 injections of 1.25 mg of bevacizumab. The average follow-up was approximately 6 months. Five eyes with exudative age-related macular degeneration developed retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) tears, all with preexisting RPE detachments. These five eyes represented 2.9% of all age-related macular degeneration eyes treated and 7% of the age-related macular degeneration eyes with preexisting RPE detachments at initiation of treatment. Other adverse events were rare and included retinal ischemia, subretinal hemorrhage, vitreous hemorrhage, ocular irritation or pain, worsened hypertension, and headache. No death or thromboembolic events were observed. Conclusion: Intraocular bevacizumab appears to be well tolerated for the treatment of a variety of retinal and choroidal vascular diseases. RPE tears may occur when treating choroidal neovascularization, particularly in patients with preexisting RPE detachment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据