The short-term efficacy of intravitreal ranibizumab, aflibercept and dexamethasone implant in the treatment of macular edema due to non-ischemic central retinal vein occlusion

Yucel Ö., Birinci H., Süllü Y.

INTERNATIONAL OPHTHALMOLOGY, cilt.39, sa.4, ss.891-901, 2019 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 39 Sayı: 4
  • Basım Tarihi: 2019
  • Doi Numarası: 10.1007/s10792-018-0890-6
  • Dergi Adı: INTERNATIONAL OPHTHALMOLOGY
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.891-901
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: Aflibercept, Central retinal vein occlusion, Dexamethasone implant, Macular edema, Ranibizumab, Retinal vein occlusion, ENDOTHELIAL GROWTH-FACTOR, VEGF-TRAP, SECONDARY, NONPERFUSION, THERAPY, BINDING, BRANCH, SAFETY
  • Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

PurposeTo assess and compare the efficacy over 6months of intravitreal ranibizumab (IR), aflibercept (IA) and dexamethasone implant (IDI) in eyes with macular edema (ME) secondary to non-ischemic central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO).MethodsThis is a retrospective single-center study. Patients who received pro re nata treatment of IR 0.5mg, IA 2mg or IDI 0.7mg (as Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3, respectively) for the treatment of ME due to non-ischemic CRVO were included in the study. Efficacy outcomes were considered as the changes in mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) from baseline over 6months.ResultsEighteen patients (Group 1) received IR, 16 patients received (Group 2) IA, and 24 patients (Group 3) received IDI. The mean numbers of injections were 2.561.0, 2.68 +/- 0.9, and 1.62 +/- 0.5 in Group 1, 2, and 3, respectively (p=0.000). In Groups 1 and 2, the mean BCVA values increased significantly after the treatment (p<0.001). However, in Group 3, no increase in mean BCVA was statistically significant in any month (p=0.061). The proportion of eyes gaining at least three lines in BCVA was 33.3% in Group 1, 43.8% in Group 2, and 33.3% in Group 3 (p=0.762). In all groups, significant improvements were observed in CMT after treatment (p<0.001). At month 6, the mean changes in CMT were -162.7 +/- 186.5 mu m in Group 1, -310.1 +/- 345.9 mu m in Group 2, and -193.8 +/- 228.3 mu m in Group 3, with no significant difference among groups (p=0.474). Cataract formation and IOP increase were higher in the IDI group, but the differences were not statistically significant (p=0.054 and p=0.392, respectively).Conclusions p id=Par4 IR and IA may be preferred treatment for ME due to non-ischemic CRVO as visual improvement remains the primary ophthalmological objective. The most important advantages of IDI are its effect on CMT and the need for fewer injections. The increase in IOP and the formation of cataract may be observed more in IDI-treated eyes.