Intravitreal Bevacizumab Injections for Treatment of Central Retinal Vein Occlusion

Priglinger, Siegfried; Wolf, Armin; Kreutzer, Thomas C.; Kook, Daniel; Hofer, Anja; Strauss, Rupert W.; Alge, Claudia S.; Kunze, Christian; Haritoglou, Christos

doi:10.1097/iae.0b013e3180ed458d

Cited by 106 publications

(88 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…6,7,[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] The two major side effects of the intravitreal triamcinolone were a steroid induced increase in intraocular pressure and development of cataract. [21][22][23][24][25] In contrast, studies on intravitreal bevacizumab by Rosenfeld et al and other researchers showed an improvement in visual acuity, reduction in macular thickness, and only minor complications in patients with CRVOs, [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] so that intravitreal triamcinolone was rapidly exchanged by intravitreal bevacizumab for the treatment of CRVO. It agrees with this study, in which the best-corrected visual acuity improved significantly in the triamcinolone group and in the bevacizumab group with a no statistically significant difference in the gain in visual acuity between both study groups, although the reduction in macular oedema was slightly more pronounced in the triamcinolone group (Table 2) (Figure 1).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Intravitreal bevacizumab vs triamcinolone acetonide for macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion

Tao

Hou

et al. 2009

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To compare the effect of intravitreal bevacizumab vs intravitreal triamcinolone for the treatment of non-ischaemic central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO). Methods The comparative nonrandomized retrospective clinical interventional study included 72 patients with non-ischaemic CRVO, divided into a bevacizumab group of 30 patients (1.25 mg bevacizumab) and a triamcinolone group of 42 patients (4.0 mg triamcinolone). All patients were consecutively included. At baseline, both study groups did not vary significantly in visual acuity, macular thickness, and duration of symptoms (191 ± 300 days vs 222 ± 256 days). The minimal follow-up was 3 months (mean: 7.8 ± 4.3 months; range: 3-12 months). During follow-up, 1.3 ± 0.4 reinjections of the triamcinolone group (range: 1-2 injections) and 2.7±1.8 re-injections of bevacizumab (range:1-6 injections) were administered. Results In both study groups, the mean visual acuity increased significantly (Po0.001) from baseline during follow-up. The differences in gain in visual acuity were not statistically significant (P40.40) between both study groups at any time during follow-up. The mean macular thickness decreased significantly (Po0.001) in both study groups, with the reduction being significantly (P ¼ 0.006) more pronounced in the triamcinolone group. Intraocular pressure increased significantly (Po0.001) in the triamcinolone group. ConclusionsIn long-standing non-ischaemic CRVO, intravitreal bevacizumab and intravitreal triamcinolone are both associated with a comparable gain in visual acuity. The reduction in macular oedema was more marked in the triamcinolone group. In view of the potential complications of intravitreal triamcinolone in terms of intraocular pressure rise and cataractogenesis, bevacizumab may be preferred compared with triamcinolone for intravitreal use in non-ischaemic CRVO. Retinal vein occlusions belong to the most common retinal disorders affecting the macula and reducing central visual acuity. [1][2][3] In a recent populationbased study, retinal vein occlusions were detected in about 0.7% of eyes of adult Chinese aged 40 þ years. Branch retinal vein occlusions were about 12 times more common than central retinal vein occlusions (CRVOs), and the non-ischaemic type was about 9 times more common than the ischaemic type. From a pathogenic point of view, a decreased tissue perfusion and an increased hydrostatic pressure within the involved segments as a consequence of the vascular obstruction may lead to intraretinal haemorrhages, exudation of fluid, varying levels of tissue ischaemia, and eventually to intraocular neovascularization, if retinal ischaemia is pronounced. 4 Although the Central Vein Occlusion Study Group has shown the beneficial of panretinal

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Intravitreal bevacizumab vs triamcinolone acetonide for macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion

Tao

Hou

et al. 2009

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, only nonischaemic eyes showed statistically significant visual acuity improvement at each time point. Priglinger et al 41 reported that the efficacy of intravitreal bevacizumab was similar between non-ischaemic CRVO and ischaemic CRVO. However, ischaemic CRVO was associated with significantly lower visual acuity than nonischaemic CRVO (Po0.001).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide vs bevacizumab for treatment of macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion

2009

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consequently, there have been other reports of shortterm beneficial effect of intravitreal bevacizumab to treat macular oedema secondary to retinal vascular disease, including central retinal vein occlusion 31,32 and diabetic retinopathy. 33,34 Gü ndü z et al 20 reported a dramatic improvement in the visual acuity with significant macular thickness reduction after intravitreal bevacizumab injections (1.25 mg/0.05 ml) for patients with BRVO.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide vs bevacizumab for treatment of macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion

2009

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intravitreal Bevacizumab Injections for Treatment of Central Retinal Vein Occlusion

Abstract: Intravitreal injection of bevacizumab appears to be a new treatment option for patients with macular edema secondary to CRVO.

Cited by 106 publications

References 40 publications

Intravitreal bevacizumab vs triamcinolone acetonide for macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion

Intravitreal bevacizumab vs triamcinolone acetonide for macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion

Intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide vs bevacizumab for treatment of macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion

Intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide vs bevacizumab for treatment of macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About