PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVT) versus intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) for the treatment of macular edema (ME) secondary to central retinal vein occlusion. METHODS: Prospective, consecutive, clinical interventional study. A total of 31 consecutive patients (32 eyes) with ME associated with central retinal vein occlusion were randomized to 2 groups. Sixteen eyes were treated with intravitreal injection of 4 mg/0.1 mL preservative-free triamcinolone acetonide; 16 eyes received IVB 1.25 mg/0.05 mL. Patients were given additional injections if they had ME as determined by optical coherence tomography 3 months after the first treatment or visual acuity loss of at least 2 lines in a Snellen chart. Best-corrected visual acuity, slit-lamp biomicroscopy, intraocular pressure, fundus fluorescein angiography, optical coherence tomography, the number of required injections, and adverse events were recorded during the 9-month follow-up period. RESULTS:Best-corrected visual acuity was significantly improved at 2 weeks and 1, 3, 6, and 9 months after injection in both the IVT and IVB groups, but no statistical difference was found between the 2 treatment groups during the 9-month follow-up period. The mean central macular thickness decreased at 1, 3, 6, and 9 months after injection within each treatment group, and no statistical difference was found between the 2 treatment groups at any time during the follow-up period (P > 0.05). Patients who received IVT treatment appeared to have quicker visual recovery and improved central macular thickness at Week 2 compared with those who received IVB treatment. Five of 16 eyes in the IVT group and 12 of 16 eyes in the IVB group required a repeated injection because of recurrent ME or unresolved intraretinal or subretinal fluid. The mean number of treatment was 1.31 ± 0.48 in the IVT group, as compared with 2.38 ± 1.04 in the IVB group. Significant intraocular pressure increase was found only in the IVT group, and six patients received topical intraocular pressure lowering medication, and one patient required trabeculectomy. Premacular membranes were developed in 2 patients in the IVT group. CONCLUSION: This is a prospective interventional study evaluating the efficacy and safety outcomes of IVT and IVB treatment for ME secondary to central retinal vein occlusion. Both IVT and IVB treatments can effectively improve best-corrected visual acuity and reduce central macular thickness in patients with ME secondary to central retinal vein occlusion without systemic side effects; no statistical differences were found in either best-corrected visual acuity or mean central macular thickness measurement between the two treatment groups. Both the effect of triamcinolone acetonide and that of bevacizumab were not permanent, and less injections were performed in the IVT group. However, triamcinolone acetonide causes more adverse events than bevacizumab.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVT) versus intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) for the treatment of macular edema (ME) secondary to central retinal vein occlusion. METHODS: Prospective, consecutive, clinical interventional study. A total of 31 consecutive patients (32 eyes) with ME associated with central retinal vein occlusion were randomized to 2 groups. Sixteen eyes were treated with intravitreal injection of 4 mg/0.1 mL preservative-free triamcinolone acetonide; 16 eyes received IVB 1.25 mg/0.05 mL. Patients were given additional injections if they had ME as determined by optical coherence tomography 3 months after the first treatment or visual acuity loss of at least 2 lines in a Snellen chart. Best-corrected visual acuity, slit-lamp biomicroscopy, intraocular pressure, fundus fluorescein angiography, optical coherence tomography, the number of required injections, and adverse events were recorded during the 9-month follow-up period. RESULTS: Best-corrected visual acuity was significantly improved at 2 weeks and 1, 3, 6, and 9 months after injection in both the IVT and IVB groups, but no statistical difference was found between the 2 treatment groups during the 9-month follow-up period. The mean central macular thickness decreased at 1, 3, 6, and 9 months after injection within each treatment group, and no statistical difference was found between the 2 treatment groups at any time during the follow-up period (P > 0.05). Patients who received IVT treatment appeared to have quicker visual recovery and improved central macular thickness at Week 2 compared with those who received IVB treatment. Five of 16 eyes in the IVT group and 12 of 16 eyes in the IVB group required a repeated injection because of recurrent ME or unresolved intraretinal or subretinal fluid. The mean number of treatment was 1.31 ± 0.48 in the IVT group, as compared with 2.38 ± 1.04 in the IVB group. Significant intraocular pressure increase was found only in the IVT group, and six patients received topical intraocular pressure lowering medication, and one patient required trabeculectomy. Premacular membranes were developed in 2 patients in the IVT group. CONCLUSION: This is a prospective interventional study evaluating the efficacy and safety outcomes of IVT and IVB treatment for ME secondary to central retinal vein occlusion. Both IVT and IVB treatments can effectively improve best-corrected visual acuity and reduce central macular thickness in patients with ME secondary to central retinal vein occlusion without systemic side effects; no statistical differences were found in either best-corrected visual acuity or mean central macular thickness measurement between the two treatment groups. Both the effect of triamcinolone acetonide and that of bevacizumab were not permanent, and less injections were performed in the IVT group. However, triamcinolone acetonide causes more adverse events than bevacizumab.
Authors: C Chiquet; C Dupuy; A M Bron; F Aptel; M Straub; R Isaico; J P Romanet; C Creuzot-Garcher Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 3.117