4.4 Article

INTRAVITREAL INJECTION OF BEVACIZUMAB FOR MACULAR EDEMA SECONDARY TO BRANCH RETINAL VEIN OCCLUSION Results After 12 Months and Multiple Regression Analysis

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0b013e3181aa8e20

关键词

bevacizumab; branch retinal vein occlusion; long-term follow-up; macular edema; multiple regression analysis

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture, Japan [18591913, 19500416, 18390466]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [18591913, 18390466, 19500416] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To evaluate the 12-month follow-up results of intravitreal bevacizumab therapy for macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion and to identify the pretreatment factors that were associated with an improvement of the final visual outcome. Methods: Fifty eyes of 50 patients with macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion received an injection of 1.25 mg/0.05 mL bevacizumab. Additional injections were done when recurrence of macular edema occurred or the treatment was not effective. The best-corrected visual acuity and foveal thickness were measured. Stepwise multiple regression analyses were also performed. Results: The mean logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution visual acuity improved significantly from 0.53 to 0.26, and the mean foveal thickness decreased significantly from 523 to 305 mu m during the 12-month follow-up period. The mean number of injections was 2.0 (range, 1-4). Stepwise multiple regression analyses showed that younger patients had both better visual acuity at 12 months and greater improvement of visual acuity during 12 months. In addition, better pretreatment visual acuity was associated with better visual acuity at 12 months but with less improvement of the visual acuity. Conclusion: Intravitreal bevacizumab therapy can be a long-term effective treatment for macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion. RETINA 29:1242-1248, 2009

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