Gary Edd Fish1. 1. Texas Retinal Associates and the Department of Ophthalmology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare intravitreous bevacizumab to other current treatments of branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) and hemisphere retinal vein occlusion (HRVO) with consideration to visual outcome, cost, convenience, and risk of treatment. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review from a large referral retina practice. The data comprise 56 patients with BRVO and HRVO treated by intravitreous bevacizumab, with and without intravitreous triamcinolone acetonide. Initial visual acuities at the time of first bevacizumab injection, best acuities through the follow-up time, final acuity at last visit before review, initial macular thickness, and final macular thickness were measured. Changes in vision and thickness were calculated, as were the percentage of eyes improving, stabilizing, and worsening. RESULTS: The data were compared to composite data derived from several current treatments of BRVO. The subgroup of 39 eyes that received only bevacizumab without triamcinolone acetonide had the most improvement in vision. The median change in visual acuity was 1.5 lines (P = .012) over a mean follow-up of 8.8 months. Twenty-three eyes (59%) improved visually, with 20 eyes (51%) improving 2 or more lines. These results are similar to those for eyes that received argon grid laser and chorioretinal anastomosis, but are worse than in eyes that received arteriovenous adventitial sheathotomy, macular decompression surgery, and intravitreous triamcinolone acetonide. CONCLUSIONS: Visual benefit from intravitreous bevacizumab compares well against laser treatments for BRVO and HRVO but not as well opposed to surgical techniques and intravitreous triamcinolone acetonide. Intravitreous bevacizumab injection has a risk, cost, and convenience profile that is favorable.
PURPOSE: To compare intravitreous bevacizumab to other current treatments of branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) and hemisphere retinal vein occlusion (HRVO) with consideration to visual outcome, cost, convenience, and risk of treatment. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review from a large referral retina practice. The data comprise 56 patients with BRVO and HRVO treated by intravitreous bevacizumab, with and without intravitreous triamcinolone acetonide. Initial visual acuities at the time of first bevacizumab injection, best acuities through the follow-up time, final acuity at last visit before review, initial macular thickness, and final macular thickness were measured. Changes in vision and thickness were calculated, as were the percentage of eyes improving, stabilizing, and worsening. RESULTS: The data were compared to composite data derived from several current treatments of BRVO. The subgroup of 39 eyes that received only bevacizumab without triamcinolone acetonide had the most improvement in vision. The median change in visual acuity was 1.5 lines (P = .012) over a mean follow-up of 8.8 months. Twenty-three eyes (59%) improved visually, with 20 eyes (51%) improving 2 or more lines. These results are similar to those for eyes that received argon grid laser and chorioretinal anastomosis, but are worse than in eyes that received arteriovenous adventitial sheathotomy, macular decompression surgery, and intravitreous triamcinolone acetonide. CONCLUSIONS: Visual benefit from intravitreous bevacizumab compares well against laser treatments for BRVO and HRVO but not as well opposed to surgical techniques and intravitreous triamcinolone acetonide. Intravitreous bevacizumab injection has a risk, cost, and convenience profile that is favorable.