4.6 Article

Improvement of Angiographic Findings of Polypoidal Choroidal Vasculopathy After Intravitreal Injection of Ranibizumab Monthly for 3 Months

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 150, 期 5, 页码 674-682

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2010.05.026

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of 1 intravitreal injection of ranibizumab monthly for 3 months in eyes with polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV), with attention to changes on indocyanine green angiography (ICGA) with confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (cSLO). DESIGN: Prospective, consecutive case series. METHODS: Fifty consecutive eyes of 50 patients with symptomatic PCV who had not been treated previously received 1 intravitreal injection of 0.5 mg ranibizumab monthly for 3 months. Changes in ICGA findings with cSLO 3 months after the primary injection were evaluated. RESULTS: The mean visual acuity (VA) at baseline (0.25; range, 0.1-0.8) improved to 0.38 (P = .001) 3 months after the primary injection. Nineteen eyes (38%) had an improvement in VA of 0.3 or more logMAR unit, and 5 eyes (10%) had a decrease in VA of 0.3 or more logMAR unit. Polypoidal lesions disappeared on ICGA in 13 eyes (26%) and the number of lesions decreased but did not disappear in 26 eyes (52%), with absorption of the accompanying fluid on optical coherence tomography. The remaining 11 eyes (22%) had unchanged or worsened polypoidal lesions. A branching vascular network remained in all 48 eyes in which the network was detected at baseline. Although resolution of the branching vascular networks or decreased diameter of the branching vascular network occurred in 11 eyes (23%), the branching vascular network was unchanged or worse in 37 eyes (77%). CONCLUSION: Although a limitation of this study is the short-term follow-up, polypoidal lesions tended to respond to ranibizumab therapy, but the branching vascular network responded poorly. (Am J Ophthalmol 2010;150:674-682. (C) 2010 by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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