4.3 Article

Treatment of Retinal Vein Occlusion with Ranibizumab in Clinical Practice: Longer-Term Results and Predictive Factors of Functional Outcome

Journal

OPHTHALMIC RESEARCH
Volume 55, Issue 1, Pages 10-18

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000440848

Keywords

Branch retinal vein occlusion; Central retinal vein occlusion; Fluorescein angiography; Macular edema; Optical coherence tomography; Retinal vein occlusion; Vascular endothelial growth factor; Visual acuity

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To evaluate long-term results and predictors of efficacy in patients with macular edema due to retinal vein occlusion (RVO) treated with intravitreal ranibizumab in a clinical practice setting. Methods: The clinical records of patients with a minimum follow-up of 3 years were retrospectively analyzed. Sixteen eyes with branch RVO (BRVO) and 16 with central RVO (CRVO) were included. All patients performed cross-sectional evaluation with best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), spectral domain optical coherence tomography and fluorescein angiography. The foveal avascular zone (FAZ) was assessed and microstructural morphology of the retina was characterized. Results: Followup was 42.9 +/- 9.0 and 44.8 +/- 8.0 months in the CRVO and BRVO groups, respectively. Patients with CRVO received on average 6.9 injections, with a final VA gain of 8.3 +/- 15.0 letters (p = 0.05). BRVO eyes had on average 5.9 injections, with a final VA gain of 1.6 +/- 21.0 letters (p > 0.05). The FAZ area remained stable in both groups (p > 0.05). Baseline BCVA and disruption of the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) were predictors of final BCVA (p = 0.001 and 0.011, respectively). Conclusion: Although functional outcomes were inferior to those reported in clinical trials, ranibizumab was satisfactory in the long-term treatment of macular edema secondary to RVO and was not associated with increased macular ischemia. Final BCVA depends on baseline BCVA and RPE integrity. (C) 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available