Martin Wand1, Alexander R Gaudio. 1. University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, Connecticut, USA. nodhilwand@aol.com
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report angiographically documented cystoid macula edema associated with the use of each of the three newly available ocular hypotensive lipids: unoprostone, travaprost, and bimatoprost. DESIGN: Observational case series. METHODS: Retrospective review of three patients in a clinical practice who had uncontrolled glaucoma on maximal tolerable therapy except for an ocular hypotensive lipids. All three patients also had previous cataract and filtration surgery, and all had an absent or open posterior lens capsule. The patients were informed of the potential risks of cystoid macula edema associated with the use of an ocular hypotensive lipids versus the risks of repeat filtration surgery. RESULTS: An ocular hypotensive lipids was started in the affected eye in each patient, and the patient was instructed to check visual acuity everyday and report back any change in vision occurred. CONCLUSION: Decreased vision of at least two lines caused by angiographically confirmed cystoid macula edema was noted in each of three patients started, respectively, on unoprostone, travaprost, and bimatoprost. The visual acuity returned to baseline, and the cystoid macula edema was angiographically resolved after discontinuation of the ocular hypotensive lipids and the initiation of a topical steroid and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory eyedrops. Until a causal relationship between cystoid macula edema and ocular hypotensive lipids is proved or disproved, caution in their use in high-risk eyes would be prudent.
PURPOSE: To report angiographically documented cystoid macula edema associated with the use of each of the three newly available ocular hypotensivelipids: unoprostone, travaprost, and bimatoprost. DESIGN: Observational case series. METHODS: Retrospective review of three patients in a clinical practice who had uncontrolled glaucoma on maximal tolerable therapy except for an ocular hypotensivelipids. All three patients also had previous cataract and filtration surgery, and all had an absent or open posterior lens capsule. The patients were informed of the potential risks of cystoid macula edema associated with the use of an ocular hypotensivelipids versus the risks of repeat filtration surgery. RESULTS: An ocular hypotensivelipids was started in the affected eye in each patient, and the patient was instructed to check visual acuity everyday and report back any change in vision occurred. CONCLUSION: Decreased vision of at least two lines caused by angiographically confirmed cystoid macula edema was noted in each of three patients started, respectively, on unoprostone, travaprost, and bimatoprost. The visual acuity returned to baseline, and the cystoid macula edema was angiographically resolved after discontinuation of the ocular hypotensivelipids and the initiation of a topical steroid and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory eyedrops. Until a causal relationship between cystoid macula edema and ocular hypotensivelipids is proved or disproved, caution in their use in high-risk eyes would be prudent.