4.2 Article

Safety and complications of intravitreal injections performed in an Asian population in Singapore

期刊

INTERNATIONAL OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 37, 期 2, 页码 325-332

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10792-016-0241-4

关键词

Age-related macula degeneration; Intravitreal injection; Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor; Choroidal neovascularization; Safety

资金

  1. National Healthcare Group Clinician Scientist Career Scheme Grant [CSCS/12005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There has been a rapid rise in the use of intravitreal injections, such as anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents, performed over the past few years for the treatment of ocular neovascular diseases. This study aims to review the systemic and ocular adverse events among patients treated at a tertiary eye center over a period of 8 years. A retrospective review of all intravitreal injections of anti-VEGF performed over an 8-year period at a tertiary eye care center in Singapore was done. We report the frequency of systemic and ocular adverse events and compared it among the various anti-VEGF agents. A total of 14 001 intravitreal injections were performed on 2225 patients from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2014, and this included 9992 bevacizumab (71.4 %), 3306 ranibizumab (23.6 %) and 703 aflibercept (5.0 %) injections. Systemic complications related to treatment were 26 (1.17 %) deaths (from any cause), of which 11 (0.49 %) were from fatal thromboembolic events, 7 (0.31 %) non-fatal thromboembolic events and two (0.09 %) serious non-ocular hemorrhage. Ocular complications included one (0.007 %) endophthalmitis, three (0.021 %) traumatic cataracts, and one (0.007 %) retinal detachment. Rates of death and thromboembolic events were similar among ranibizumab (lucentis), bevacizumab (avastin) and aflibercept (Eylea). The systemic and ocular complications associated with intravitreal injections among Asian patients at a tertiary eye center are relatively low and reflect the safety of the treatments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据