Cargando…
DMEK outcomes using nondiabetic grafts for recipients with diabetes mellitus
PURPOSE: To compare Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) outcomes using nondiabetic grafts in diabetic and nondiabetic recipients. METHODS: All eyes that underwent DMEK between February 2013 and October 2016 (follow-up ≥3 months, without prior keratoplasty) were included. Recipients wer...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6630035/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31341996 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajoc.2019.100512 |
_version_ | 1783435214280720384 |
---|---|
author | Janson, Ben J. Terveen, Daniel C. Benage, Matthew J. Zimmerman, M. Bridget Mixon, David C. Aldrich, Benjamin T. Skeie, Jessica M. Schmidt, Gregory A. Reed, Cynthia R. Goins, Kenneth M. Greiner, Mark A. |
author_facet | Janson, Ben J. Terveen, Daniel C. Benage, Matthew J. Zimmerman, M. Bridget Mixon, David C. Aldrich, Benjamin T. Skeie, Jessica M. Schmidt, Gregory A. Reed, Cynthia R. Goins, Kenneth M. Greiner, Mark A. |
author_sort | Janson, Ben J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: To compare Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) outcomes using nondiabetic grafts in diabetic and nondiabetic recipients. METHODS: All eyes that underwent DMEK between February 2013 and October 2016 (follow-up ≥3 months, without prior keratoplasty) were included. Recipients were divided into diabetic (insulin dependent [IDDM] or noninsulin dependent [NIDDM]) and nondiabetic groups. Main outcome measures included postoperative visual acuity, rebubble procedure rates, and graft failure rates. RESULTS: Of 334 eyes (243 subjects) included for analysis, 63 eyes (18.8%) were from diabetic recipients. At each timepoint, best-corrected visual acuity trended lower for IDDM recipients compared to NIDDM and nondiabetic recipients. There were no statistically significant differences in rebubble rates of diabetic compared to nondiabetic recipients (20.6% vs. 12.9%, p = 0.17), or IDDM compared to nondiabetic recipients (27.3% vs. 12.9%, p = 0.08; hazard ratio 2.26). Overall, 13 grafts (3.9%) failed (mean follow-up, 565 days; range, 90–1293 days). Graft failures did not differ between diabetic and nondiabetic recipients (4.0% vs. 4.9%, p = 0.15) regardless of subgroup (p = 0.36). CONCLUSIONS: DMEK provides excellent outcomes for patients with and without diabetes. DMEK outcomes were excellent with improvements in visual acuity and low rates of graft failure. Our findings were unable to determine differences between rebubble procedure rates but do emphasize the need for further research using stratified groups based on diabetes severity. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6630035 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-66300352019-07-24 DMEK outcomes using nondiabetic grafts for recipients with diabetes mellitus Janson, Ben J. Terveen, Daniel C. Benage, Matthew J. Zimmerman, M. Bridget Mixon, David C. Aldrich, Benjamin T. Skeie, Jessica M. Schmidt, Gregory A. Reed, Cynthia R. Goins, Kenneth M. Greiner, Mark A. Am J Ophthalmol Case Rep Brief Report PURPOSE: To compare Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) outcomes using nondiabetic grafts in diabetic and nondiabetic recipients. METHODS: All eyes that underwent DMEK between February 2013 and October 2016 (follow-up ≥3 months, without prior keratoplasty) were included. Recipients were divided into diabetic (insulin dependent [IDDM] or noninsulin dependent [NIDDM]) and nondiabetic groups. Main outcome measures included postoperative visual acuity, rebubble procedure rates, and graft failure rates. RESULTS: Of 334 eyes (243 subjects) included for analysis, 63 eyes (18.8%) were from diabetic recipients. At each timepoint, best-corrected visual acuity trended lower for IDDM recipients compared to NIDDM and nondiabetic recipients. There were no statistically significant differences in rebubble rates of diabetic compared to nondiabetic recipients (20.6% vs. 12.9%, p = 0.17), or IDDM compared to nondiabetic recipients (27.3% vs. 12.9%, p = 0.08; hazard ratio 2.26). Overall, 13 grafts (3.9%) failed (mean follow-up, 565 days; range, 90–1293 days). Graft failures did not differ between diabetic and nondiabetic recipients (4.0% vs. 4.9%, p = 0.15) regardless of subgroup (p = 0.36). CONCLUSIONS: DMEK provides excellent outcomes for patients with and without diabetes. DMEK outcomes were excellent with improvements in visual acuity and low rates of graft failure. Our findings were unable to determine differences between rebubble procedure rates but do emphasize the need for further research using stratified groups based on diabetes severity. Elsevier 2019-07-09 /pmc/articles/PMC6630035/ /pubmed/31341996 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajoc.2019.100512 Text en © 2019 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Brief Report Janson, Ben J. Terveen, Daniel C. Benage, Matthew J. Zimmerman, M. Bridget Mixon, David C. Aldrich, Benjamin T. Skeie, Jessica M. Schmidt, Gregory A. Reed, Cynthia R. Goins, Kenneth M. Greiner, Mark A. DMEK outcomes using nondiabetic grafts for recipients with diabetes mellitus |
title | DMEK outcomes using nondiabetic grafts for recipients with diabetes mellitus |
title_full | DMEK outcomes using nondiabetic grafts for recipients with diabetes mellitus |
title_fullStr | DMEK outcomes using nondiabetic grafts for recipients with diabetes mellitus |
title_full_unstemmed | DMEK outcomes using nondiabetic grafts for recipients with diabetes mellitus |
title_short | DMEK outcomes using nondiabetic grafts for recipients with diabetes mellitus |
title_sort | dmek outcomes using nondiabetic grafts for recipients with diabetes mellitus |
topic | Brief Report |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6630035/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31341996 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajoc.2019.100512 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT jansonbenj dmekoutcomesusingnondiabeticgraftsforrecipientswithdiabetesmellitus AT terveendanielc dmekoutcomesusingnondiabeticgraftsforrecipientswithdiabetesmellitus AT benagematthewj dmekoutcomesusingnondiabeticgraftsforrecipientswithdiabetesmellitus AT zimmermanmbridget dmekoutcomesusingnondiabeticgraftsforrecipientswithdiabetesmellitus AT mixondavidc dmekoutcomesusingnondiabeticgraftsforrecipientswithdiabetesmellitus AT aldrichbenjamint dmekoutcomesusingnondiabeticgraftsforrecipientswithdiabetesmellitus AT skeiejessicam dmekoutcomesusingnondiabeticgraftsforrecipientswithdiabetesmellitus AT schmidtgregorya dmekoutcomesusingnondiabeticgraftsforrecipientswithdiabetesmellitus AT reedcynthiar dmekoutcomesusingnondiabeticgraftsforrecipientswithdiabetesmellitus AT goinskennethm dmekoutcomesusingnondiabeticgraftsforrecipientswithdiabetesmellitus AT greinermarka dmekoutcomesusingnondiabeticgraftsforrecipientswithdiabetesmellitus |