Cargando…
Visual Function for Driving in Diabetic Macular Edema and Retinal Vein Occlusion Post-Stabilization with Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor
PURPOSE: What is the level of visual function in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) and retinal vein occlusion (RVO) post-stabilization with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor? PATIENTS AND METHODS: This observational non-controlled single center study evaluated visual function in two p...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Dove
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8069120/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33907379 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S304229 |
_version_ | 1783683162713358336 |
---|---|
author | Nixon, Donald R Flinn, Nicholas |
author_facet | Nixon, Donald R Flinn, Nicholas |
author_sort | Nixon, Donald R |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: What is the level of visual function in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) and retinal vein occlusion (RVO) post-stabilization with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor? PATIENTS AND METHODS: This observational non-controlled single center study evaluated visual function in two patient populations with macular edema 25 with diabetic macular edema and 25 with retinal vein occlusion treated following standard protocol of anti-VEGF therapy post- stabilization. RESULTS: A total of 68 eyes from 50 patients were analyzed including 18 bilateral and 7 unilateral diabetic macular edema, 14 patients with central and 11 with branch retinal vein occlusion. The mean age was 69± 11 years and 64% were male. In the RVO group: LogMAR BCVA was 0.12±0.13 compared to the unaffected eye 0.04±0.05 (P=<0.01), contrast sensitivity in the treated eye was 1.69±0.21 log units compared to 1.84± 0.15 log units in the unaffected eye (p=<0.01), the ganglion cell volume was 0.88± 0.15 mm(3) in the treated eye compared to 1.04± 0.1 mm(3) in the unaffected eye (P=<0.01). In the diabetic macular edema group: LogMAR BCVA was 0.17±0.13, contrast sensitivity in the treated eye was 1.16±0.21 log units compared to the normal population 1.92±0.8 log units (p=<0.01), the ganglion cell volume was 0.94± 0.14 mm(3) in the treated eye compared to 1.03± 0.12 mm(3) in the normal population (P=<0.001). In both groups a majority of treated eyes retained visual acuity ≥+0.4 LogMAR (diabetic macular edema 95%, RVO 96%) however contrast sensitivity was more than two standard deviations below the normal population mean in a majority of treated eyes in both groups (diabetic macular edema 88% RVO 64%). CONCLUSION: Impairment in contrast sensitivity in both groups could impact activities of daily living including driving and should prompt questions about how we advise patients regarding their level of function and the potential limitations/restrictions that should be placed on such activities. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8069120 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Dove |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-80691202021-04-26 Visual Function for Driving in Diabetic Macular Edema and Retinal Vein Occlusion Post-Stabilization with Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Nixon, Donald R Flinn, Nicholas Clin Ophthalmol Original Research PURPOSE: What is the level of visual function in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) and retinal vein occlusion (RVO) post-stabilization with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor? PATIENTS AND METHODS: This observational non-controlled single center study evaluated visual function in two patient populations with macular edema 25 with diabetic macular edema and 25 with retinal vein occlusion treated following standard protocol of anti-VEGF therapy post- stabilization. RESULTS: A total of 68 eyes from 50 patients were analyzed including 18 bilateral and 7 unilateral diabetic macular edema, 14 patients with central and 11 with branch retinal vein occlusion. The mean age was 69± 11 years and 64% were male. In the RVO group: LogMAR BCVA was 0.12±0.13 compared to the unaffected eye 0.04±0.05 (P=<0.01), contrast sensitivity in the treated eye was 1.69±0.21 log units compared to 1.84± 0.15 log units in the unaffected eye (p=<0.01), the ganglion cell volume was 0.88± 0.15 mm(3) in the treated eye compared to 1.04± 0.1 mm(3) in the unaffected eye (P=<0.01). In the diabetic macular edema group: LogMAR BCVA was 0.17±0.13, contrast sensitivity in the treated eye was 1.16±0.21 log units compared to the normal population 1.92±0.8 log units (p=<0.01), the ganglion cell volume was 0.94± 0.14 mm(3) in the treated eye compared to 1.03± 0.12 mm(3) in the normal population (P=<0.001). In both groups a majority of treated eyes retained visual acuity ≥+0.4 LogMAR (diabetic macular edema 95%, RVO 96%) however contrast sensitivity was more than two standard deviations below the normal population mean in a majority of treated eyes in both groups (diabetic macular edema 88% RVO 64%). CONCLUSION: Impairment in contrast sensitivity in both groups could impact activities of daily living including driving and should prompt questions about how we advise patients regarding their level of function and the potential limitations/restrictions that should be placed on such activities. Dove 2021-04-20 /pmc/articles/PMC8069120/ /pubmed/33907379 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S304229 Text en © 2021 Nixon and Flinn. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) ). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php). |
spellingShingle | Original Research Nixon, Donald R Flinn, Nicholas Visual Function for Driving in Diabetic Macular Edema and Retinal Vein Occlusion Post-Stabilization with Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor |
title | Visual Function for Driving in Diabetic Macular Edema and Retinal Vein Occlusion Post-Stabilization with Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor |
title_full | Visual Function for Driving in Diabetic Macular Edema and Retinal Vein Occlusion Post-Stabilization with Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor |
title_fullStr | Visual Function for Driving in Diabetic Macular Edema and Retinal Vein Occlusion Post-Stabilization with Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor |
title_full_unstemmed | Visual Function for Driving in Diabetic Macular Edema and Retinal Vein Occlusion Post-Stabilization with Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor |
title_short | Visual Function for Driving in Diabetic Macular Edema and Retinal Vein Occlusion Post-Stabilization with Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor |
title_sort | visual function for driving in diabetic macular edema and retinal vein occlusion post-stabilization with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8069120/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33907379 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S304229 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT nixondonaldr visualfunctionfordrivingindiabeticmacularedemaandretinalveinocclusionpoststabilizationwithantivascularendothelialgrowthfactor AT flinnnicholas visualfunctionfordrivingindiabeticmacularedemaandretinalveinocclusionpoststabilizationwithantivascularendothelialgrowthfactor |