4.6 Article

The impact of retinal fluid tolerance on the outcomes of neovascular age-related macular degeneration treated using aflibercept: A real-world study

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 17, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271999

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the impact of retinal fluid tolerance on visual acuity and retinal thickness in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration. The results indicate that a fluid-tolerant approach can provide comparable gains in visual acuity to strict treatment, and reducing the number of injections may improve adherence to therapy.
This study investigated the impact of retinal fluid tolerance on retinal thickness and visual acuity in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration after 18 months of treatment using intravitreal aflibercept. This retrospective study was based on the medical records of 90 eyes presenting persistent or recurrent retinal fluid retention after 3 months of aflibercept loading injections. We defined the fluid tolerance ratio as the sum of fluid-tolerance duration divided by the total duration of retinal fluid observed throughout the follow-up period. Eyes were categorized into strict, intermediate, and relaxed group based on their fluid tolerance ratio (= 0, < 30%, > = 30%, respectively). The mean total follow-up time was 556 days. The relaxed group required fewer injections than the strict group (4.92 vs 7.50 injections, P < 0.01) and presented a similar reduction in retinal thickness (-57.50 vs -71.65 mu m, P = 0.83). Nonetheless, the two groups were similar in terms of final visual acuity (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution 0.72 vs 0.70, P = 0.95) and visual gains (4.21 vs -1.12 letters, P = 0.56). These results indicate that in the setting of limited medical resources, a fluid-tolerant approach provides comparable gains in visual acuity. Reducing the number of injections may also improve adherence to therapy.

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