4.4 Article

Anatomic response of occult choroidal neovascularization to intravitreal ranibizumab: a study by indocyanine green angiography

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00417-011-1831-5

关键词

Age-related macular degeneration; Choroidal neovascularization; Fluorescein angiography; Indocyanine angiography; Optical coherence tomography; Ranibizumab

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To investigate changes in indocyanine green angiography (ICGA) features of occult choroidal neovascularization (CNV) after intravitreal ranibizumab injections. We reviewed the charts of all consecutive patients with newly diagnosed occult CNV secondary to age-related macular degeneration (AMD) treated by intravitreal ranibizumab. In all patients, optical coherence tomography (OCT) and ICGA were performed at baseline, after 3 months and 12 months. Fifty-one eyes of 44 patients (ten males, 34 females, mean age 77.8 +/- 7.3 years) were included. Mean follow-up was 20.3 +/- 6.2 months. During the first 12 months, patients received 5.5 +/- 2.7 intravitreal ranibizumab injections. When compared with baseline, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) significantly improved at the 3-month follow-up visit (60.5 +/- 22.0 vs 50.9 +/- 20.7 letters, p = 0.04), and stabilized at 12-month visit (55.7 +/- 18.2 letters; p = 0.05). Central macular thickness (CMT) significantly improved during follow-up (229.0 +/- 54.7 mu m vs 281.0 +/- 61.3 mu m at baseline, p = 0.003). An overall stabilization was observed on ICGA in both the lesion area (5.27 +/- 3.9 mm(2) at baseline vs 4.60 +/- 3.5 mm(2) at month 12, p = 0.4), and greatest linear dimension (GLD 2.66 +/- 1.2 mm at baseline vs 2.55 +/- 1.0 mm at month 12, p = 0.3). Eight eyes (15.7%) showed CNV growth on ICGA (lesion area 3.98 +/- 3.2 mm2 at baseline vs 4.3 +/- 2.7 mm2 at month-12, p = 0.6; GLD 2.11 +/- 1.0 mm at baseline vs 2.70 +/- 0.8 mm at month-12, p = 0.05). ICGA suggests that functional outcomes after intravitreal ranibizumab is related to CMT reduction rather than CNV regression.

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

4.4
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