2009
DOI: 10.3129/i09-040
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effects of intravitreal bevacizumab on patients with macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
8
2
1

Year Published

2010
2010
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
1
8
2
1
Order By: Relevance
“…It is also indicated for the treatment of CNV associated with entities such as high myopia,16,17 macular edema associated with vascular occlusion18 or diabetes mellitus,19 and premature retinopathy of prematurity 20…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is also indicated for the treatment of CNV associated with entities such as high myopia,16,17 macular edema associated with vascular occlusion18 or diabetes mellitus,19 and premature retinopathy of prematurity 20…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One of the main mediators exacerbating macular edema is vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) [2]. Bevacizumab is an off-label anti-VEGF agent used in ophthalmology practice, and intravitreal injection of bevacizumab (IVB) results in prompt reduction of macular edema associated with recovery of vision in eyes with symptomatic macular edema secondary to BRVO [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. These effects seem to be equal or superior to those of other treatments, including laser photocoagulation [11] and intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide [12][13][14][15][16].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The dosage varies between 1 and 2.5 mg, there are no different outcomes [39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48]. The Pan-American Collaborative Retina Study group concluded that intravitreal injections of bevacizumab at doses up to 2.5 mg were more effective in improving VA and reducing macular edema at 6 months (compared to 1.25 mg), but the study had no control group [44].…”
Section: Treatmentmentioning
confidence: 99%