4.6 Article

Long-term Outcomes in Ranibizumab-Treated Patients With Retinal Vein Occlusion; The Role of Progression of Retinal Nonperfusion

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 156, 期 4, 页码 693-705

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2013.05.039

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wilmer Biostatistics Core Grant [EY01765]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To determine the percentage of ranibizumab-treated patients with retinal vein occlusion (RVO) who had resolution of edema for at least 6 months after the last injection, along with factors and outcomes that correlate with resolution. DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of open-label clinical trial. METHODS: Twenty patients with branch RVO (BRVO) and 20 with central RVO (CRVO) received ranibizumab monthly for 3 months and as needed for recurrent/persistent macular edema, no more frequently than every 2 months. Patients still requiring injections after month 40 received scatter and grid laser photocoagulation to try to reduce the need for injections. Main outcome measures included the percentage of patients who had resolution of edema, change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline, and change in area of retinal nonperfusion in central subfields. RESULTS: Nine patients with BRVO (45%) had edema resolution from injections alone after a mean of 20.2 months, 4 resolved after addition of laser, 4 were unresolved through 72 months, and 3 exited prior to resolution. Five patients with CRVO (25%) resolved from injections alone after a mean of 14.0 months, 8 remained unresolved through 72 months despite addition of laser, and 7 exited prior to resolution. For BRVO or CRVO, there was a negative correlation between posterior retinal nonperfusion area and BCVA at months 18, 24, and 36 (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with RVO, infrequent ranibizumab injections to control edema may not be sufficient to prevent progression of retinal nonperfusion, which may contribute to loss of visual gains. ((C) 2013 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