4.4 Article

ONE-YEAR RESULTS OF ADJUNCTIVE PHOTODYNAMIC THERAPY FOR TYPE 1 NEOVASCULARIZATION ASSOCIATED WITH THICKENED CHOROID

Journal

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000000809

Keywords

age-related macular degeneration; choroidal neovasularization; photodynamic therapy; polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy

Categories

Funding

  1. Novartis
  2. Bayer
  3. Allergan
  4. Alcon

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To evaluate the 1-year results of adjunctive photodynamic therapy in patients with Type 1 neovascularization associated with thickened choroid who were refractory to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor monotherapy. Methods: Data on 28 eyes of 28 patients with Type 1 neovascularization with a minimum subfoveal choroidal thickness of 300 mm were reviewed. All showed persistent subretinal and/or intraretinal fluid after at least 4 anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections in the 6 months before adjunctive photodynamic therapy. No eyes had certain polypoidal lesions on indocyanine green angiography. Results: At 3 months, complete fluid absorption was observed in 24 eyes (85.7%). The mean best-corrected visual acuity significantly improved (20/53-20/44, P = 0.040) and mean subfoveal choroidal thickness reduced (386 to 350 mm, P < 0.001) compared with baseline. Over a 1-year follow-up period, 17 eyes (60.7%) were free from recurrent fluid accumulation. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injection was mainly used in retreatment (mean: 1.5). At 12 months, best-corrected visual acuity improved by >= 0.3 logMAR or maintained compared with baseline in 27 eyes (96.4%). Conclusion: Adjunctive photodynamic therapy in eyes with Type 1 neovascularization with thickened choroid that were refractory to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor monotherapy resulted in complete fluid absorption in most eyes, which translated to visual improvement until 1 year.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available