Cargando…

Prospective evaluation of changes in choroidal vascularity index after half-dose photodynamic therapy versus micropulse laser treatment in chronic central serous chorioretinopathy

PURPOSE: To assess whether treatment of chronic central serous chorioretinopathy (cCSC) with photodynamic therapy (PDT) and high-density subthreshold micropulse laser (HSML) results in choroidal vascularity index (CVI) changes that may account for the treatment effect. METHODS: Patients with cCSC we...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van Rijssen, Thomas J., Singh, Sumit Randhir, van Dijk, Elon H. C., Rasheed, Mohammed A., Vupparaboina, Kiran Kumar, Boon, Camiel J. F., Chhablani, Jay
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7237528/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32170365
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00417-020-04619-6
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: To assess whether treatment of chronic central serous chorioretinopathy (cCSC) with photodynamic therapy (PDT) and high-density subthreshold micropulse laser (HSML) results in choroidal vascularity index (CVI) changes that may account for the treatment effect. METHODS: Patients with cCSC were prospectively included and analyzed. Patients received either half-dose PDT or HSML treatment. CVI of the affected and unaffected eye was obtained before treatment, 6 to 8 weeks after treatment, and 7 to 8 months after treatment. RESULTS: At baseline, 29 eyes (29 patients) were included both in the PDT and in the HSML group. The mean (± standard deviation) CVI change in the HSML group between before PDT and 6 to 8 weeks after PDT was − 0.009 ± 0.032 (p = 0.127), whereas this was 0.0025 ± 0.037 (p = 0.723) between the visit before PDT and final visit. The patients in the PDT group had a CVI change of − 0.0025 ± 0.037 (p = 0.723) between the visit before PDT and first visit after PDT, and a mean CVI change of − 0.013 ± 0.038 (p = 0.080) between the visit before PDT and final visit. There was no significant correlation between CVI and BCVA at the measured time points, in both the HSML group (p = 0.885), and in the PDT group (p = 0.904). Moreover, no significant changes in CVI occurred in the unaffected eye at any time point. CONCLUSIONS: PDT and HSML do not significantly affect CVI, and therefore a CVI change may not be primarily responsible for the treatment effect. The positive treatment effect of both interventions may rely on other mechanisms, such as an effect on choriocapillaris and/or retinal pigment epithelium function.