4.6 Article

Effects of posterior vitreous detachment on aqueous humour levels of VEGF and inflammatory cytokines

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 99, 期 8, 页码 1065-1069

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-306051

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To investigate the association of posterior vitreous detachment (PVD) with aqueous levels of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and other inflammatory cytokines. Methods These are prospective comparative studies. Subjects comprised 98 eyes for VEGF concentration and 80 eyes for other cytokines, which are normal except for cataract. PVD was examined by B-mode ultrasonography, and the subjects were divided into complete PVD group (PVD group) or the other group (without PVD group). At the beginning of cataract surgery, aqueous humour was collected and the concentrations of VEGF and other inflammatory cytokines were determined using ELISA and a multiplex cytokine assay, respectively. The concentrations of these cytokines were compared between the two groups. Results Complete PVD was observed in 56 (57%) eyes for VEGF concentration analysis, and 51 (64%) eyes for the other cytokines analysis. The concentrations of VEGF, adjusted for the average age, axial length and gender distribution, was 47 pg/ mL in the PVD group and 72 pg/mL in the without PVD group. The concentrations of IP10, MCP-1, CXCL13 and CCL11 were 53, 450, 3.8 and 6.0 pg/ mL in the PVD group, and 100, 560, 7.0 and 8.4 pg/ mL in the without PVD group, respectively. Multiple regression analysis revealed that the logarithmic concentration of VEGF, IP-10, MCP-1, CXCL13 and CCL11 were significantly lower in the eyes with PVD than in those without PVD independently of age, sex and axial length (p = 0.01, p = 0.002, p = 0.009, 0.006 and 0.03, respectively). Conclusions PVD is related to the change in the multiple intraocular inflammatory cytokines.

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

4.6
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