4.4 Article

BILATERAL INTRAVITREAL INJECTION OF ANTIVASCULAR ENDOTHELIAL GROWTH FACTOR THERAPY

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0b013e3181ed8c80

关键词

age-related macular degeneration; anti-VEGF

资金

  1. Research to Prevent Blindness, Inc., New York, NY

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to review adverse events and patient preference after bilateral intravitreal injection of antibodies to vascular endothelial growth factor. Methods: A retrospective case-control study. Patients with exudative age-related macular degeneration who received intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor agent injections in both eyes (bilateral group) on the same day over a 23-month period were compared with patients who received injections in only 1 eye. The occurrence of endophthalmitis, cerebrovascular accident, myocardial infarction, death, patient discomfort, and patient preference was compared between the two groups. Results: One hundred and two patients received an average of 4.43 bilateral injections (range 1-13). A case-control group of 102 patients received an average of 10.2 unilateral injections, (range 2-28). Bevacizumab was injected 45.5%, ranibizumab 45.5%, and a combination of bevacizumab and ranibizumab 9% of the time for bilateral injections. Bevacizumab was used 50.3% and ranubizumab 49.7% of the time in unilateral injections. The follow-up of both groups averaged 18.4 months (range 4.7-36.5 months). There were no cases of endophthalmitis or cerebrovascular accident in either group. There was a single case of myocardial infarction in each group. There were two deaths in the bilateral group and three deaths in the unilateral group. More than 90% strongly preferred bilateral injections to unilateral injections. Conclusion: Bilateral injections of antivascular endothelial growth factor agents on the same day did not increase the rate of adverse events and was preferred by the majority of patients. RETINA 31:31-35, 2011

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