4.2 Article

Effect of Epiretinal Membranes on Antivascular Endothelial Growth Factor Treatment for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration

期刊

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/jop.2016.0178

关键词

age-related macular degeneration; antivascular endothelial growth factor; choroidal neovascularization; epiretinal membrane

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To evaluate the effect of epiretinal membranes (ERMs), detected with spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT), on the outcome of antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). Methods: A total of 434 eyes with treatment-naive nAMD were retrospectively included and analyzed. All patients were administered an initial series of 3 monthly loading injections of ranibizumab or aflibercept, followed by further injections as required. The visual and anatomical outcomes were compared between the eyes with ERMs and those without. Features of ERMs at baseline assessed with SD-OCT were evaluated and correlated with visual outcomes. Results: Sixty-eight eyes (15.7%) with nAMD presented ERMs at baseline. The mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of these eyes, expressed as the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution, improved from 0.750.48 (Snellen equivalent: 20/112) to 0.59 +/- 0.44 (20/77) after 12 months of treatment (P = 0.021). Central foveal thickness also decreased from 381 +/- 191 mu m to 294 +/- 167 mu m (P < 0.001). Compared to the eyes without ERMs (366 eyes), the eyes with ERMs had a significantly thicker central fovea after treatment (P = 0.020). However, the intergroup differences in BCVA improvement were not significant. No significant association was found between visual outcome after treatment and ERM features on OCT at baseline. Conclusions: In eyes with nAMD, ERMs were infrequent. Central foveal thickness was significantly greater after anti-VEGF treatment in eyes with nAMD and ERMs. However, the presence of ERMs in eyes with nAMD did not affect visual outcome.

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

4.2
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