4.6 Article

Progression of diabetic macular edema: Correlation with blood-retinal barrier permeability, retinal thickness, and retinal vessel diameter

期刊

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
卷 48, 期 9, 页码 3983-3987

出版社

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.06-1102

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE. To study the progression of diabetic macular edema (DME) in relation to baseline retinal thickness, retinal vascular leakage, and retinal trunk vessel diameters. METHODS. In this single-center study, 45 patients were enrolled with 62 eligible eyes defined as having DME of a grade less than clinically significant macular edema (CSME). From the start, the patients were included in a multicenter study exploring the effect of ruboxistaurin versus placebo for 3.4 years. Subsequently, the patients were followed up for a mean of 5.7 years by optical coherence tomography, fundus photography, and vitreous fluorometry. Baseline values in eyes that progressed to photocoagulation treatment were compared with values from eyes that did not reach this endpoint. RESULTS. In the 22 eyes of 18 patients in which CSME was diagnosed and treated, mean retinal vascular leakage at baseline was 5.6 (95% CI 4.2-7.6) nm/s, whereas eyes that did not progress to photocoagulation had a significantly lower mean leakage at baseline of 3.4 ( 95% CI 2.7-4.3) nm/s. No significant difference was found for measures of baseline retinal thickness or summarized retinal trunk vessel diameters. Eyes that progressed to photocoagulation treatment ( mean delay to treatment, 3.6 years) had significantly higher foveal thicknesses than did nonprogressing eyes, from 18 months after study initiation. CONCLUSIONS. Progression to photocoagulation treatment for CSME was associated with higher retinal vascular leakage at baseline, whereas baseline retinal vessel diameters and retinal thickness were comparable in progressing and nonprogressing eyes. Baseline leakage was the strongest predictor of progression from non-CSME to photocoagulation for CSME.

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