PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists in comparison to acetazolamide and observation in the treatment of central serous chorioretinopathy. METHODS: Retrospective, interventional cohort study on 93 patients with acute or chronic central serous chorioretinopathy (37 patients: acetazolamide group, 20 patients: mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonist group, 8 patients: observation group, and 27 patients with a therapy switch between both medications). Main outcome measures were the change in best-corrected visual acuity, subretinal fluid (SRF) volume, central retinal prominence, and highest retinal prominence (HRP) at 12 weeks. RESULTS: HRP and SRF volume improved with statistical significance (P ≤ 0.05) after mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonist (P = 0.0000003 for the prominence, P = 0.008 for the volume) and acetazolamide (P < 0.0000001 for the prominence, P = 0.0000007 for the volume) treatment. HRP and SRF volume also improved after observation, but without statistical significance (P = 0.08 for the prominence, P = 0.72 for the volume). Corresponding visual acuity improved significantly in acetazolamide (P = 0.002) and mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonist (P = 0.03) treated patients. Interestingly, HRP and SRF volume in acetazolamide nonresponsive patients improved after switch to mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists, whereas no benefit was seen in patients switching vice versa. CONCLUSIONS: Both medical treatments are effective first-line treatment options for central serous chorioretinopathy. In patients who are nonresponsive to acetazolamide, therapy switch to mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists could be beneficial.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists in comparison to acetazolamide and observation in the treatment of central serous chorioretinopathy. METHODS: Retrospective, interventional cohort study on 93 patients with acute or chronic central serous chorioretinopathy (37 patients: acetazolamide group, 20 patients: mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonist group, 8 patients: observation group, and 27 patients with a therapy switch between both medications). Main outcome measures were the change in best-corrected visual acuity, subretinal fluid (SRF) volume, central retinal prominence, and highest retinal prominence (HRP) at 12 weeks. RESULTS: HRP and SRF volume improved with statistical significance (P ≤ 0.05) after mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonist (P = 0.0000003 for the prominence, P = 0.008 for the volume) and acetazolamide (P < 0.0000001 for the prominence, P = 0.0000007 for the volume) treatment. HRP and SRF volume also improved after observation, but without statistical significance (P = 0.08 for the prominence, P = 0.72 for the volume). Corresponding visual acuity improved significantly in acetazolamide (P = 0.002) and mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonist (P = 0.03) treated patients. Interestingly, HRP and SRF volume in acetazolamide nonresponsive patients improved after switch to mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists, whereas no benefit was seen in patients switching vice versa. CONCLUSIONS: Both medical treatments are effective first-line treatment options for central serous chorioretinopathy. In patients who are nonresponsive to acetazolamide, therapy switch to mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists could be beneficial.