Cargando…

Intravitreal bevacizumab for macular edema due to branch retinal vein occlusion: 12-month results

PURPOSE: To present the functional and anatomic changes after intravitreal bevacizumab in eyes with macular edema (ME) due to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). DESIGN: The study was a retrospective study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 31 patients with ME due to BRVO. We compared the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Demir, Mehmet, Oba, Ersin, Gulkilik, Gökhan, Odabasi, Mahmut, Ozdal, Erhan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3130911/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21750607
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S19279
_version_ 1782207665024270336
author Demir, Mehmet
Oba, Ersin
Gulkilik, Gökhan
Odabasi, Mahmut
Ozdal, Erhan
author_facet Demir, Mehmet
Oba, Ersin
Gulkilik, Gökhan
Odabasi, Mahmut
Ozdal, Erhan
author_sort Demir, Mehmet
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To present the functional and anatomic changes after intravitreal bevacizumab in eyes with macular edema (ME) due to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). DESIGN: The study was a retrospective study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 31 patients with ME due to BRVO. We compared the examination findings of patients with ME before and after intravitreal bevacizumab therapy at 12 months. The study included patients who had macular edema secondary to BRVO treated with bevacizumab. The therapy was started in the first week after occlusion. The initial therapy was three intravitreal bevacizumab injections at monthly intervals with 1.25/0.05 mL bevacizumab. Patients with a baseline visual acuity less than 0.5 (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR] 0.30), central macular thickness (CMT) more than 290 μm, and no neovascularization were included. Patients with diabetes mellitus or a history of intravitreal triamcinolone or grid laser photocoagulation therapy or ischemic BRVO were excluded. The retreatment criteria were as follows: increased CMT more than 100 μm combined with a loss of visual acuity of five or more letters. The statistical analysis of this study was carried out by paired samples t-test (SPSS). A P value of less than 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: This retrospective study included 33 eyes of 31 patients (20 women, 11 men; mean age was 55.30 ± 9.62 years (range 36–75 years). Patients received a mean of 5.3 injections during 12 months of follow-up. The best corrected visual acuity increased from 0.66 ± 0.20 (logMAR) at baseline to 0.22 ± 0.13 (logMAR) (t = 15.42; P < 0.001) at month 12. The CMT decreased from 494.15 ± 104.16 μm at baseline to 261.79 ± 45.36 μm at month 12 (− 232.36 ± 109.98 μm); P < 0.001). No bevacizumab-related systemic or ocular adverse effects following intravitreal drug injections were observed. The majority of patients required reinjection(s) treatment for ME (84.9%). CONCLUSION: Intravitreal therapy using bevacizumab appears to be an effective primary treatment option for ME due to BRVO. No serious ophthalmologic or systemic side effects were observed for intravitreal bevacizumab therapy. The main disadvantage of bevacizumab therapy is the requirement of multiple injections in order to maintain visual and anatomic improvements.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3130911
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31309112011-07-12 Intravitreal bevacizumab for macular edema due to branch retinal vein occlusion: 12-month results Demir, Mehmet Oba, Ersin Gulkilik, Gökhan Odabasi, Mahmut Ozdal, Erhan Clin Ophthalmol Original Research PURPOSE: To present the functional and anatomic changes after intravitreal bevacizumab in eyes with macular edema (ME) due to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). DESIGN: The study was a retrospective study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 31 patients with ME due to BRVO. We compared the examination findings of patients with ME before and after intravitreal bevacizumab therapy at 12 months. The study included patients who had macular edema secondary to BRVO treated with bevacizumab. The therapy was started in the first week after occlusion. The initial therapy was three intravitreal bevacizumab injections at monthly intervals with 1.25/0.05 mL bevacizumab. Patients with a baseline visual acuity less than 0.5 (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR] 0.30), central macular thickness (CMT) more than 290 μm, and no neovascularization were included. Patients with diabetes mellitus or a history of intravitreal triamcinolone or grid laser photocoagulation therapy or ischemic BRVO were excluded. The retreatment criteria were as follows: increased CMT more than 100 μm combined with a loss of visual acuity of five or more letters. The statistical analysis of this study was carried out by paired samples t-test (SPSS). A P value of less than 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: This retrospective study included 33 eyes of 31 patients (20 women, 11 men; mean age was 55.30 ± 9.62 years (range 36–75 years). Patients received a mean of 5.3 injections during 12 months of follow-up. The best corrected visual acuity increased from 0.66 ± 0.20 (logMAR) at baseline to 0.22 ± 0.13 (logMAR) (t = 15.42; P < 0.001) at month 12. The CMT decreased from 494.15 ± 104.16 μm at baseline to 261.79 ± 45.36 μm at month 12 (− 232.36 ± 109.98 μm); P < 0.001). No bevacizumab-related systemic or ocular adverse effects following intravitreal drug injections were observed. The majority of patients required reinjection(s) treatment for ME (84.9%). CONCLUSION: Intravitreal therapy using bevacizumab appears to be an effective primary treatment option for ME due to BRVO. No serious ophthalmologic or systemic side effects were observed for intravitreal bevacizumab therapy. The main disadvantage of bevacizumab therapy is the requirement of multiple injections in order to maintain visual and anatomic improvements. Dove Medical Press 2011 2011-06-03 /pmc/articles/PMC3130911/ /pubmed/21750607 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S19279 Text en © 2011 Demir et al, publisher and licensee Dove Medical Press Ltd. This is an Open Access article which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Demir, Mehmet
Oba, Ersin
Gulkilik, Gökhan
Odabasi, Mahmut
Ozdal, Erhan
Intravitreal bevacizumab for macular edema due to branch retinal vein occlusion: 12-month results
title Intravitreal bevacizumab for macular edema due to branch retinal vein occlusion: 12-month results
title_full Intravitreal bevacizumab for macular edema due to branch retinal vein occlusion: 12-month results
title_fullStr Intravitreal bevacizumab for macular edema due to branch retinal vein occlusion: 12-month results
title_full_unstemmed Intravitreal bevacizumab for macular edema due to branch retinal vein occlusion: 12-month results
title_short Intravitreal bevacizumab for macular edema due to branch retinal vein occlusion: 12-month results
title_sort intravitreal bevacizumab for macular edema due to branch retinal vein occlusion: 12-month results
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3130911/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21750607
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S19279
work_keys_str_mv AT demirmehmet intravitrealbevacizumabformacularedemaduetobranchretinalveinocclusion12monthresults
AT obaersin intravitrealbevacizumabformacularedemaduetobranchretinalveinocclusion12monthresults
AT gulkilikgokhan intravitrealbevacizumabformacularedemaduetobranchretinalveinocclusion12monthresults
AT odabasimahmut intravitrealbevacizumabformacularedemaduetobranchretinalveinocclusion12monthresults
AT ozdalerhan intravitrealbevacizumabformacularedemaduetobranchretinalveinocclusion12monthresults