BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes in eyes with central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) presenting with (group 1) or without (group 2) fovea-involving intraretinal hemorrhage (IRH). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of patients diagnosed with acute, treatment-naïve CRVO between January 2009 and July 2016. RESULTS: One hundred fifteen (39.8%) of 289 CRVO eyes had fovea-involving IRH. At baseline, eyes in group 1 had significantly worse visual acuity (VA) (1.2 ± 0.10 logMAR vs. 0.9 ± 0.06 logMAR; P = .001) and greater central subfield thickness (CST) (610.4 μm ± 35.9 μm vs. 435.0 μm + 21.6 μm; P < .001) than eyes in group 2. Final visual outcomes were comparable between groups (1.24 ± 0.09 logMAR vs. 1.02 ± 0.08 logMAR; P = .08). Group 1 received a significantly greater number of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections during the first year (7.80 ± 0.40 vs. 5.20 ± 0.40; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although treatment-naïve eyes with acute CRVO and fovea-involving IRH had worse VA and greater CST at presentation, the final VA was comparable to eyes without such a hemorrhage. Eyes with foveal IRH had a greater treatment burden in the first 12 months. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2019;50:752-759.]. Copyright 2019, SLACK Incorporated.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes in eyes with central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) presenting with (group 1) or without (group 2) fovea-involving intraretinal hemorrhage (IRH). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of patients diagnosed with acute, treatment-naïve CRVO between January 2009 and July 2016. RESULTS: One hundred fifteen (39.8%) of 289 CRVO eyes had fovea-involving IRH. At baseline, eyes in group 1 had significantly worse visual acuity (VA) (1.2 ± 0.10 logMAR vs. 0.9 ± 0.06 logMAR; P = .001) and greater central subfield thickness (CST) (610.4 μm ± 35.9 μm vs. 435.0 μm + 21.6 μm; P < .001) than eyes in group 2. Final visual outcomes were comparable between groups (1.24 ± 0.09 logMAR vs. 1.02 ± 0.08 logMAR; P = .08). Group 1 received a significantly greater number of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections during the first year (7.80 ± 0.40 vs. 5.20 ± 0.40; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although treatment-naïve eyes with acute CRVO and fovea-involving IRH had worse VA and greater CST at presentation, the final VA was comparable to eyes without such a hemorrhage. Eyes with foveal IRH had a greater treatment burden in the first 12 months. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2019;50:752-759.]. Copyright 2019, SLACK Incorporated.
Authors: Andrew Hendrick; Paul C VanVeldhuisen; Ingrid U Scott; Jacquie King; Barbara A Blodi; Michael S Ip; Rahul N Khurana; Neal L Oden Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2020-08-20 Impact factor: 5.258