4.3 Article

Risk factors for repeated dexamethasone intravitreal implant therapy for macular edema due to treatment-naive branch retinal vein occlusion

期刊

BMC OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12886-021-01904-8

关键词

Age; Branch retinal vein occlusion; Central retinal thickness; Dexamethasone intravitreal implant; Diabetes; Macular edema

资金

  1. Allergan plc, Dublin, Ireland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that dexamethasone intravitreal implant leads to significant improvements in macular edema and visual acuity, while older age, higher initial CRT, and diabetes are risk factors for requiring multiple injections.
BackgroundThis study evaluated the effects of dexamethasone intravitreal implant on treatment-naive branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO)-induced macular edema (ME), and the risk factors for earlier repeated treatment.MethodsPatients treated from 2013 to 2016 were enrolled. The patients' demographics, medical history, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and central retinal thickness (CRT) were recorded. Risk factors for repeated treatment were identified using a Cox proportional hazard model and logistic regression.Results29 patients (mean age: 58.6413.3years) were included; 44.8% received only one injection, while 55.2% received two or more. The mean initial CRT was 457.8 +/- 167.1 mu m; the peak CRT and final CRT improved significantly to 248.9 +/- 57.9 mu m and 329.2 +/- 115.1 mu m, respectively. The peak BCVA improvement and final improvement were 29.5 +/- 23.5 approximate ETDRS letters and 19.8 +/- 24.4 letters, respectively, with 62.1% of patients improving by more than 15 letters. Older age, higher initial CRT, and diabetes were the risk factors for multiple injections.Conclusion Dexamethasone intravitreal implant results in significant peak CRT and BCVA improvements, while older age, higher initial CRT, and diabetes are risk factors for repeated injections. The optimal retreatment schedule for these patients should be further explored.

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

4.3
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