4.6 Article

Effect of Intravitreal Triamcinolone Acetonide or Bevacizumab on Choroidal Thickness in Eyes With Diabetic Macular Edema

期刊

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
卷 55, 期 6, 页码 3979-3985

出版社

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.14-14188

关键词

diabetic retinopathy; choroid; steroid

资金

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [26861459] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE. We evaluated the effect of intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA) or intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) on subfoveal choroidal thickness (SFCT) in eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME). METHODS. In this prospective, randomized, interventional comparative study, 51 DME eyes of 51 patients were randomized to receive either IVTA or IVB. The central macular thickness (CMT) and SFCT were determined by optical coherence tomography at 24 hours, 7 days, and 4, 8, and 12 weeks. The SFCT at 1500 and 3000 mu m nasal or temporal to the central fovea also was measured. The values obtained before were compared to those obtained 12 weeks after the injections. RESULTS. The eyes were randomly assigned to the IVTA (25 eyes) and IVB (26 eyes) groups. The SFCT was reduced significantly in the IVTA group from 24 hours to 12 weeks. The average +/- SD of the SFCT expressed as the ratio to baseline thickness decreased to 94.8% +/- 5.6% (P < 0.01) at 24 hours after IVTA and remained unchanged up to 12 weeks (91.8% +/- 10.5%, P < 0.01, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). In the IVB group, no significant difference was found in the SFCT after IVB for 12 weeks. The CMT decreased significantly in both groups from 24 hours to 4 weeks; however, the decrease was not significant at 8 weeks or later in the IVB group. CONCLUSIONS. The decrease in choroidal thickness in eyes with DME after IVTA suggests that the choroidal pathology in diabetic retinopathy might be due to steroid-sensitive factors rather than vascular endothelial growth factor. (www.umin.ac.jp/ctrnumber, clinical trials number UMIN000009854.)

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