Eyes with PDR that received only intravitreal anti-VEGF demonstrated worse anatomic and functional outcomes after being LTFU compared with eyes that received PRP. Given the potential sequelae of being LTFU, the choice of treatment for PDR must be considered carefully.

IMPORTANCE Loss to follow-up (LTFU) after anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections increases the risk of vision loss among patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). OBJECTIVE To report rates of LTFU among patients with nAMD after anti-VEGF injections and to identify risk factors associated with LTFU in this population. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis retrospective cohort study of data from 9007 patients who received anti-VEGF injections for treatment of nAMD was performed at an urban, private retina practice with multiple locations from April 1, 2012, to January 12, 2016. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESRates of LTFU after anti-VEGF injections. Loss to follow-up was defined as receipt of 1 or more injections with no subsequent follow-up visit within 12 months. RESULTS Amongthe 9007 patients (mean [SD] age, 81.2 [8.8] years; 5917 [65.7%] female; 7905 [87.8%] white), 2003 (22.2%) were LTFU. Odds of LTFU were greater among patients 81 to 85 years of age (odds ratio [OR], 1.58; 95% CI, 1.38-1.82; P < .001), 86 to 90 years of age (OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 2.00-2.62; P < .001), and more than 90 years of age (OR, 3.31; 95% CI, 2.83-3.86; P < .001) compared with patients 80 years of age and younger. Odds of LTFU among African American patients (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.00-2.16; P = .05), Asian patients (OR, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.71-4.03; P < .001), patients of other race (OR, 3.

No abstract

No abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To identify the proportion of patients with retinal vein occlusion (RVO) with loss to follow-up (LTFU) along with potential risk factors after receiving an intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review based on billing codes was performed from January 1, 2012, to January 1, 2017. LTFU was defined as no office visit within 12 months following an intravitreal injection. Potential risk factors for LTFU were screened using univariate analysis for inclusion in a final multivariate logistic regression model. RESULTS: A total of 3,400 unique patients with RVO with macular edema met the study inclusion criteria. Of these, 863 patients (25.4%) were LTFU. Rates of LTFU varied based on race / ethnicity, age, RVO type, distance from clinic, insurance status, and regional average adjusted gross income. In the multivariate analysis, patients with LTFU were more likely to be black (odds ratio [OR] = 1.37), Hispanic (OR = 2.37), and living more than 20 miles away from clinic (OR = 1.47). Patients who were 65 to 80 years old (OR = 0.71) and those with branch retinal vein occlusion (OR = 0.70) were less likely to be LTFU. Subgroup analysis showed that patients with baseline visual acuity better than 20/50 were also less likely to be LTFU. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one in four patients did not return for a year or more after receiving an intravitreal injection for RVO. Given the importance of ongoing therapy to prevent vision loss, these “real-world” findings are of significant concern. [ Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina . 2019;50:159–166.]

No abstract

BackgroundTo evaluate the anatomical and visual outcomes by par plana vitrectomy with or without internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling in highly myopic eyes with macular hole retinal detachment (MHRD).MethodsMEDLINE (Ovid, PubMed) and EMBASE were used for data collection up to September 30, 2015. The parameters of anatomical success, macular hole closure and improved best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at or beyond 6 months after operation were assessed as the primary outcome measurement. The meta-analysis was performed with the fixed-effects model.ResultsSeven comparative analyses involving a total of 373 patients were included in the present meta-analysis. Statistically the pooled data showed significant relative risk (RR) in terms of primary reattachment between ILM peeling and non-peeling groups (RR, 1.19; 95 % CI, 1.04 to 1.36; P = 0.012). An effect favoring ILM peeling with regard to macular hole closure was also detected (RR, 1.71; 95 % CI, 1.20 to 2.43; P = 0.003). However, no statistically significant difference was found in the improved BCVA (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution) at 6 months or more (95 % CI, −0.31 to 0.44; P = 0.738).ConclusionsThere is no proved benefit of postoperative visual improvement. However, the available evidences from this study suggested a superiority of ILM peeling over no peeling for myopic patients with MHRD.

No abstract