Literature DB >> 34051211

Ab-Externo MicroShunt versus Trabeculectomy in Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma: One-Year Results from a 2-Year Randomized, Multicenter Study.

N Douglas Baker1, Howard S Barnebey2, Marlene R Moster3, Michael C Stiles4, Steven D Vold5, Anup K Khatana6, Brian E Flowers7, Davinder S Grover8, Nicholas G Strouthidis9, Joseph F Panarelli10.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of the MicroShunt versus trabeculectomy in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG).
DESIGN: One-year results from a 2-year, prospective, randomized, multicenter, noninferiority study (NCT01881425) conducted in the United States and Europe. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible patients were aged 40-85 years with intraocular pressure (IOP) ≥15 and ≤40 mmHg and mild-to-severe POAG inadequately controlled on maximum tolerated medical therapy.
METHODS: Patients were randomized 3:1 to undergo stand-alone MicroShunt implantation or trabeculectomy, both performed with adjunctive mitomycin C (0.2 mg/ml for 2 minutes). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary effectiveness end point was surgical success, defined as ≥20% reduction in mean diurnal IOP from baseline (no medication washout) at year 1 without increasing the number of glaucoma medications. Secondary effectiveness end points at year 1 were the mean IOP change from baseline and requirement for postoperative intervention. Additional end points included glaucoma medication use and adverse events.
RESULTS: Overall, 395 (MicroShunt) and 132 (trabeculectomy) patients were randomized (mean Humphrey visual field mean deviation, -12.34 decibels [dB]). At year 1, probability of success was lower in the MicroShunt group compared with the trabeculectomy group (53.9% vs. 72.7%, respectively; P < 0.01). In the MicroShunt group, mean IOP ± standard deviation decreased from 21.1 ± 4.9 mmHg at baseline to 14.3 ± 4.3 mmHg (-29.1%; P < 0.01) at year 1, with a mean of 0.6 ± 1.1 glaucoma medications (baseline 3.1 ± 1.0; P < 0.01). In the trabeculectomy group, mean IOP decreased from 21.1 ± 5.0 mmHg to 11.1 ± 4.3 mmHg (-45.4%; P < 0.01), with a mean of 0.3 ± 0.9 glaucoma medications (baseline 3.0 ± 0.9; P < 0.01). Postoperative interventions, including laser suture lysis, were reported in 40.8% (MicroShunt) versus 67.4% (trabeculectomy) of patients (P < 0.01). Reported incidence of transient hypotony was higher in the trabeculectomy group versus the MicroShunt group (49.6% vs. 28.9%; P < 0.01). Vision-threatening complications were uncommon and reported in 1.0% of MicroShunt versus 0.8% of trabeculectomy patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Probability of success was lower with MicroShunt compared with trabeculectomy. Although reductions in IOP and glaucoma medications over 1 year were observed in both groups, the trabeculectomy group had a lower mean IOP on fewer medications.
Copyright © 2021 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Antifibrotic agents; Aqueous drainage devices; Glaucoma; Open-angle glaucoma; Randomized controlled trial; Trabeculectomy

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34051211     DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2021.05.023

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ophthalmology        ISSN: 0161-6420            Impact factor:   12.079


  15 in total

1.  One-year outcomes of microshunt implantation in pseudoexfoliation glaucoma.

Authors:  Matthias Nobl; Sigrid Freissinger; Stefan Kassumeh; Siegfried Priglinger; Marc J Mackert
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-08-27       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 2.  Corneal Endothelial Cell Loss in Glaucoma and Glaucoma Surgery and the Utility of Management with Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty (DMEK).

Authors:  Neeru A Vallabh; Stephnie Kennedy; Riccardo Vinciguerra; Keri McLean; Hannah Levis; Davide Borroni; Vito Romano; Colin E Willoughby
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-01-30       Impact factor: 1.974

3.  Expedited regulatory product approval in the time of COVID-19.

Authors:  Gary D Novack
Journal:  Ocul Surf       Date:  2022-05-28       Impact factor: 6.268

4.  Efficacy and Safety of the Preserflo Microshunt With Mitomycin C for the Treatment of Open Angle Glaucoma.

Authors:  Marta Ibarz Barberá; Fátima Martínez-Galdón; Elena Caballero-Magro; Marta Rodríguez-Piñero; Pedro Tañá-Rivero
Journal:  J Glaucoma       Date:  2022-05-17       Impact factor: 2.290

5.  Endothelial cell loss 5 years after Preserflo MicroShunt implantation: About two cases.

Authors:  Chloé Chamard; Sirine Hammoud; Elisa Bluwol; Yves Lachkar
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol Case Rep       Date:  2021-12-08

Review 6.  PreserFlo® MicroShunt: An Overview of This Minimally Invasive Device for Open-Angle Glaucoma.

Authors:  Gloria Gambini; Matteo Mario Carlà; Federico Giannuzzi; Tomaso Caporossi; Umberto De Vico; Alfonso Savastano; Antonio Baldascino; Clara Rizzo; Raphael Kilian; Aldo Caporossi; Stanislao Rizzo
Journal:  Vision (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-09

7.  Conjunctival erosion following a PRESERFLO® MicroShunt procedure.

Authors:  Eamonn T Fahy; Henrietta Ho; Ukasha Dukht; Anurag Garg; Kin Sheng Lim
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol Case Rep       Date:  2022-01-29

8.  A New and Easier Approach to Preserflo MicroShunt Implantation.

Authors:  Antonio M Fea; Andrea Ghilardi; Davide Bovone; Michele Reibaldi; Alessandro Rossi; Earl R Craven
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-04-27

9.  Tissue Reactivity to, and Stability of, Glaucoma Drainage Device Materials Placed Under Rabbit Conjunctiva.

Authors:  Kenichi Nakamura; Tomokazu Fujimoto; Miho Okada; Kentaro Maki; Atsushi Shimazaki; Masatomo Kato; Toshihiro Inoue
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2022-04-01       Impact factor: 3.283

10.  Short-term safety and efficacy of Preserflo™ Microshunt in glaucoma patients: a multicentre retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Alessandro Rabiolo; Karl Mercieca; Raj Bhayani; Jose Maria Martínez de la Casa; Michele Figus; Karsten Klabe
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2022-03-12       Impact factor: 3.775

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.