AIMS: To compare anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment outcomes for macular oedema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO) based on vitreoretinal interface (VRI) status. METHODS: This retrospective case series includes treatment-naive eyes diagnosed with RVO and treated with anti-VEGF injections. Eyes were stratified based on international VRI classification schema at baseline into three groups-vitreomacular traction (group A), no posterior vitreous detachment (PVD) (group B) and PVD without vitreomacular attachment (group C). Fifty-two eyes were identified based on inclusion/exclusion criteria. The primary endpoint was change in central subfield thickness (CST) on optical coherence tomography at 6 months. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics of patients with RVO when stratified by VRI subgroups. After 6 months of treatment, there was no statistically significant difference in the change in CST from baseline between VRI cohorts (p=0.11). There was a trend demonstrating the greatest improvement in CST in eyes in group A compared with eyes in groups B and C (-224.13 μm, -160.88 μm and -50.92 μm, respectively, p=0.11 between cohorts). Mean change in logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution visual acuity from baseline to month 6 in group A compared with groups B and C was -0.25, -0.14 and -0.13, respectively (p=0.64 between cohorts). CONCLUSIONS: We did not identify an association between VRI status and treatment outcomes with anti-VEGF agents for ME secondary to RVO. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
AIMS: To compare anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment outcomes for macular oedema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO) based on vitreoretinal interface (VRI) status. METHODS: This retrospective case series includes treatment-naive eyes diagnosed with RVO and treated with anti-VEGF injections. Eyes were stratified based on international VRI classification schema at baseline into three groups-vitreomacular traction (group A), no posterior vitreous detachment (PVD) (group B) and PVD without vitreomacular attachment (group C). Fifty-two eyes were identified based on inclusion/exclusion criteria. The primary endpoint was change in central subfield thickness (CST) on optical coherence tomography at 6 months. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics of patients with RVO when stratified by VRI subgroups. After 6 months of treatment, there was no statistically significant difference in the change in CST from baseline between VRI cohorts (p=0.11). There was a trend demonstrating the greatest improvement in CST in eyes in group A compared with eyes in groups B and C (-224.13 μm, -160.88 μm and -50.92 μm, respectively, p=0.11 between cohorts). Mean change in logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution visual acuity from baseline to month 6 in group A compared with groups B and C was -0.25, -0.14 and -0.13, respectively (p=0.64 between cohorts). CONCLUSIONS: We did not identify an association between VRI status and treatment outcomes with anti-VEGF agents for ME secondary to RVO. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.