Prospective comparisons of intravitreal injections of triamcinolone acetonide and bevacizumab for macular oedema due to branch retinal vein occlusion

Purpose: To compare the efficacy of intravitreal injections of triamcinolone acetonide (TA) and that of bevacizumab for macular oedema because of branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). Design: Prospective, comparative, randomized, interventional clinical trial. Methods: Forty‐three eyes of 43 patients with macular oedema because of BRVO were randomly assigned to 4‐mg intravitreal injections of TA (IVTA)(21 patients, IVTA group) or 1.25‐mg intravitreal injections of bevacizumab (IVB) (22 patients, IVB group) and followed for 12 months. No additional treatments were administered for 3 months after the initial injection; additional injections were administered when macular oedema recurred between 3 and 12 months after the initial injection. The best‐corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and the central retinal thickness (CRT) were measured at baseline and monthly. The main outcome measures were changes in the logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution BCVA and CRT from baseline to 12 months. Results: Eighteen eyes of 18 patients in the IVTA group and 18 eyes of 18 patients in the IVB group completed follow‐up at 12 months. The mean improvements in BCVA from baseline to 12 months were 0.12 in the IVTA group and 0.33 in the IVB group, which was significantly (p = 0.032) higher than in the IVTA group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the mean reduction in CRT from baseline to 12 months after the initial injection. Two eyes in the IVTA group required intraocular pressure–lowering medications. Conclusion: Intravitreal injection of bevacizumab may be of greater benefit than that of TA for macular oedema because of BRVO.     

Intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide for macular oedema owing to retinal vein occlusion

PURPOSE: To assess the long-term safety and efficacy of intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection in the management of macular oedema caused by central, hemi-, and branch retinal vein occlusion (CRVO, HRVO, or BRVO). METHODS: This prospective, interventional case series included 13 patients (13 eyes) with retinal vein occlusion and macular oedema. They received an intravitreal injection of 4 mg triamcinolone acetonide. Follow-up was for 1 year with repeat injections where appropriate. Outcome measures were visual acuity and macular thickness measured using ocular coherence tomography (OCT). RESULTS: There were four patients with CRVO, one with HRVO, and eight with BRVO (13 eyes). Mean duration of symptoms before intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection was 6.8 months (SD 4.5 months). Eight eyes (62%) responded well with improved visual acuity and macular thickness 1-3 months postinjection. All eight eyes developed recurrent macular oedema and five received repeat injections. Three patients declined a second injection. No improvement in visual acuity or OCT macular thickness was seen after the second injection with visual acuity returning to baseline levels at 1-year follow-up. Three eyes (23%) showed no response to the initial injection (no improvement in macular thickness or visual acuity). Seven patients (54%) had a rise in intraocular pressure with six (46%) requiring treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Intravitreal injection of triamcinolone acetonide is effective as a short-term treatment of macular oedema owing to retinal vein occlusion, improving both visual acuity and macular thickness. However, this effectiveness is not maintained after 1 year despite repeat injections.     

Intravitreal anti-VEGF agents, oral glucocorticoids, and laser photocoagulation combination therapy for macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion: preliminary report

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of combined anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents, oral glucocorticoid, and laser photocoagulation therapy for macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO). METHODS: This study included 16 eyes of 16 patients with RVO-associated ME. Patients were initially treated with oral prednisone and an intravitreal anti-VEGF agent. Two weeks later, patients underwent standard laser photocoagulation. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT), and retinal vessel oxygenation were examined over 12mo. RESULTS: Patients received 1.43±0.81 anti-VEGF injections. Mean baseline and 12-month logMAR BCVA were 0.96±0.51 (20/178) and 0.31±0.88 (20/40), respectively, in eyes with central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) (P<0.00), and 1.02±0.45 (20/209) and 0.60±0.49 (20/80), respectively, in eyes with branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) (P<0.00). At 12mo, CRT had significantly decreased in eyes with CRVO (P<0.00) and BRVO (P<0.00). Venous oxygen saturation had significantly increased in eyes with CRVO (P<0.00) and BRVO (P<0.00). No examined parameters were significantly different between the 2 RVO groups. No serious adverse effects occurred. CONCLUSION: Anti-VEGF, glucocorticoid, and photocoagulation combination therapy improves visual outcome, prolongs therapeutic effect, and reduces the number of intravitreal injections in eyes with RVO-associated ME.     

Peripheral retinal non-perfusion and treatment response in branch retinal vein occlusion

AIM: To evaluate the association between the size of peripheral retinal non-perfusion and the number of intravitreal ranibizumab injections in patients with treatment-naive branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) and macular edema. METHODS: A total of 53 patients with treatment-naive BRVO and macular edema were included. Each patient underwent a full ophthalmologic examination including optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging and ultra wide-field fluorescein angiography (UWFA). Monthly intravitreal ranibizumab injections were applied according to the recommendations of the German Ophthalmological Society. Two independent, masked graders quantified the areas of peripheral retinal non-perfusion. RESULTS: Intravitreal injections improved best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) significantly from 22.23±16.33 Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters to 36.23±15.19 letters (P<0.001), and mean central subfield thickness significantly reduced from 387±115 µm to 321±115 µm (P=0.01). Mean number of intravitreal ranibizumab injections was 3.61±1.56. The size of retinal non-perfusion correlated significantly with the number of intravitreal ranibizumab injections (R=0.724, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Peripheral retinal non-perfusion in patients with BRVO associates significantly with intravitreal ranibizumab injections in patients with BRVO and macular edema.     

玻璃体腔注射康柏西普治疗视网膜静脉阻塞并黄斑水肿

目的：观察玻璃体腔注射康柏西普治疗视网膜静脉阻塞( RVO)并黄斑水肿患者的临床疗效。方法：视网膜静脉阻塞并黄斑水肿患者27例27眼,其中中央静脉阻塞( CRVO )8例8眼,分支静脉阻塞( BRVO )19例19眼接受玻璃体腔注射康柏西普联合适时眼底激光光凝治疗,观察患眼治疗前、后最佳矫正视力( BCVA )和黄斑中心视网膜厚度( CRT)的转归情况。结果：患者27例27眼治疗前平均BCVA (最小分辨角对数视力 LogMAR )和 CRT 为0.8822±0.5601和713.8±224.8μm,末次随访时分别为0.5963±0.4481和376.7±185.5μm。其中8例 CRVO 患者平均注射次数为4.75次,平均随访时间为13mo,治疗前平均 LogMAR 视力为0.9802±0.6663,接受3次注药治疗后和末次随访时分别为0.7082±0.4629和0.8517±0.5895,治疗后视力有所提高,但差异无统计学意义( P>0.05);平均CRT治疗前为835.1±289.3μm,3次治疗后和末次随访时分别为306.8±117.7、487.5±201.6μm,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。19例BRVO患者平均注射次数为2.2,随访时间为9mo,治疗前平均LogMAR视力为0.8124±0.4529,在接受1次注药治疗后及末次随访时分别为0.4789 ± 0.2792、0.4888± 0.3163,治疗后视力明显提高,差异有统计学意义( P<0.05);平均CRT治疗前为662.7±176.6μm,1次注药治疗后及末次随访时分别为283.8±129.3、330.6±161.4μm,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。所有患者随访期间均未见明显严重并发症发生。
　　结论：玻璃体腔注射康柏西普能够减轻RVO并黄斑水肿患者视网膜水肿程度,提高患眼视力,对BRVO并黄斑水肿的患者疗效持续时间相对较长,单次注射疗效最长可维持1a。     

Surgical macular decompression for macular edema in retinal vein occlusion

BACKGROUND: Recently, a number of surgical and laser approaches have been used to improve visual outcome in cases of central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) and branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). Intravitreal steroid injection alone appears to offer only temporary improvement at best. Radial optic neurotomy for CRVO and arteriovenous adventitial sheathotomy for BRVO are the most frequently utilized surgical procedures for these conditions, but evidence regarding efficacy is still lacking. We have suggested that macular decompression by internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling may reduce macular edema and hemorrhage and improve visual acuity by relieving elevated intraretinal tissue pressure and facilitating egress of blood and extracellular fluid out of inner retinal layers into the vitrectomized vitreous cavity. METHODS: 50 cases of severe visual loss due to macular edema caused by CRVO or BRVO, not eligible for laser photocoagulation, underwent pars plana vitrectomy with removal of preretinal hyaloid, peeling of the ILM stained with indocyanine green dye, air-fluid exchange, and postoperative prone positioning. RESULTS: In all cases, intraretinal blood and retinal thickening diminished within 6 weeks of surgery. Visual acuity improved in 87% of CRVO cases and 68% of BRVO cases. Vision improved and stabilized at 39 days after surgery. Average improvement was 2.6 lines with a 6-line improvement in 1 case. There was no difference in outcome between cases with ischemic or nonischemic features on fluorescein angiography. INTERPRETATION: Macular decompression using vitrectomy and ILM peeling is effective in the treatment of severe visual loss due to macular edema in CRVO and in those BRVO cases that do not qualify for laser photocoagulation.     

玻璃体腔注射雷珠单抗联合激光治疗视网膜分支静脉阻塞继发黄斑水肿的疗效观察

目的观察玻璃体腔注射雷珠单抗联合黄斑区格栅样光凝治疗视网膜分支静脉阻塞（BRVO）继发黄斑水肿的疗效和安全性。方法据荧光素眼底血管造影（FFA）对30例（30眼）视网膜分支静脉阻塞继发黄斑水肿患者随机分为2组：第1组（14眼）单纯行黄斑区格栅样光凝（GLP）;第2组（16眼）玻璃体腔连续注射3次雷珠单抗0.05ml/（0.5mg）,每次间隔1个月,第1次注射雷珠单抗7天后行GLP治疗。随访6个月,观察最佳矫正视力（BCVA）及光学相关断层扫描（OCT）检查黄斑中心凹厚度（CMT）的变化。结果 6个月后两组患者最佳矫正视力（BCVA）均提高,联合治疗组优于单纯GLP组（P〈0.05）。OCT显示第1组黄斑中心凹厚度平均降低236.4±113.0μm,第2组平均降低386.6±195.5μm,联合治疗组优于单纯GLP组（P〈0.05）。结论联合治疗明显优于单独激光治疗,玻璃体腔内注射雷珠单抗联合黄斑区格栅样光凝术治疗视网膜分支静脉阻塞继发黄斑水肿安全有效。     

雷珠单抗联合激光光凝治疗视网膜分支静脉阻塞继发黄斑水肿的疗效

目的：观察雷珠单抗玻璃体腔注射联合黄斑区激光光凝治疗视网膜分支静脉阻塞( branch retinal vein occlusion, BRVO)继发黄斑水肿的安全性及有效性。方法：临床确诊为BRVO继发黄斑水肿的病例患者44例44眼纳入研究,分为玻璃体腔注射雷珠单抗+黄斑区激光光凝组(联合组)和单纯黄斑区激光光凝组(光凝组)。所有患者均行最佳矫正视力、裂隙灯检查、眼底检查、非接触眼压计检查、荧光素眼底血管造影及光相干断层扫描检查。联合组所有患者均行常规玻璃体腔注射雷珠单抗0.05mL/0.5mg。出现黄斑水肿时,按需进行雷珠单抗玻璃体腔注射。玻璃体腔注射雷珠单抗后1wk,给予黄斑区激光光凝治疗。所有患者均随访6 mo。对比分析患眼治疗前后BCVA及CMT的变化情况以及有无并发症发生情况。结果：联合组疗效明显,视网膜厚度降低明显,视力提高快,视力及CMT 值均与治疗前比较差异有统计学意义(视力：t=5.781、7.496、7.341、7.836,均P=0.000;CMT：t=9.784、11.893、11.573、11.437,均P=0.000)。激光组激光治疗后1wk视力与治疗前比较差异无统计学意义( t=2.130,P=0.053),治疗后4、12、24wk视力改善与治疗前比较差异均有统计学意义( t=3.524、6.429、6.922, P=0.04、0.000、0.000)。联合组与激光组治疗后1、4、12、24 wk不同时间点视力比较差异有统计学意义( t=2.604、3.223、3.303、3.296,P=0.015、0.03、0.04、0.03)。联合组与激光组治疗后不同时间点CMT值变化差异有统计学意义( t =43.231、50.504、56.074、38.103,均 P =0.000)。随访期间未发生眼部并发症及全身不良反应。结论：雷珠单抗联合黄斑区激光光凝治疗BRVO继发黄斑水肿有良好的疗效及安全性。     

不同方法治疗视网膜分支静脉阻塞继发黄斑水肿的疗效

目的:观察玻璃体腔注射康柏西普与雷珠单抗联合黄斑区格栅样激光光凝(macular laser grid photocoagulation,MLG)治疗视网膜分支静脉阻塞(branch retinal vein occlusion,BRVO)继发黄斑水肿(macular edema,ME)的疗效.方法:按照计算机产生随机数将BRVO继发ME患者120例120眼分为3组,各40例40眼,A组:单纯行MLG;B组:玻璃体腔注射雷珠单抗(0.05mL/0.5mg)1wk后给予MLG治疗;C组:玻璃体腔注射康柏西普(0.05 mL/0.5mg)1wk后给予MLG治疗.三组治疗后1mo根据复查FFA、OCT结果对效果不佳患者可重复注射药物.随访6mo,对比B组和C组重复注射率.观察各组治疗前及治疗后1wk,1、3、6mo最佳矫正视力(best corrected visual acuity,BCVA)、黄斑中心凹视网膜厚度(central macular thickness,CMT)结果,统计各组并发症.结果:B组患者连续注射雷珠单抗2次者4眼,连续注射3次者7眼,重复注射率27.5%,C组均注射1次,B组重复注射率比C组高,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);三组患者治疗后BCVA较治疗前均得到提高,CMT均较治疗前变薄,但B组和C组治疗后BCVA均高于A组,且CMT低于A组.另外,治疗后C组BCVA高于B组,CMT低于B组,但B组和C组BCVA和CMT比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);直至随访结束,三组患者均无明显不良反应,B组与C组患者均未复发,A组复发率25%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).结论:玻璃体腔注射康柏西普与雷珠单抗联合激光光凝治疗BRVO继发ME疗效均佳,但康柏西普联合激光治疗注射次数相对较少.     

康柏西普和雷珠单抗治疗视网膜静脉阻塞继发黄斑水肿有效性的Meta分析

目的：系统评价康柏西普和雷珠单抗治疗视网膜静脉阻塞(RVO)继发黄斑水肿(ME)的疗效、安全性、经济性。

方法：分别在万方数据库、中国生物医学文献服务系统、中国知网、Pubmed、The Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials(CENTRAL)、Google scholar等数据库收集自建库至2020-02-20关于康柏西普和雷珠单抗治疗RVO继发ME的对照研究,提取最佳矫正视力、黄斑中心凹视网膜厚度、不良反应发生情况、注射次数等主要结局指标进行系统评价,比较二者的效果。采用RevMan 5.3统计软件进行数据的分析。

结果：共纳入16项研究,合计患者1 337例。Meta分析结果提示,与雷珠单抗相比,康柏西普在采用1+PRN注射方案和治疗视网膜分支静脉阻塞(BRVO)继发ME患者时,对黄斑水肿的消退效果更明显,但二者注射次数无明显差异; 与雷珠单抗相比,康柏西普在采用3+PRN注射方案和治疗视网膜中央静脉阻塞(CRVO)继发ME患者时,注射次数更少; 康柏西普和雷珠单抗在视力改善和不良反应的发生方面无明显差异。

结论：与雷珠单抗相比,康柏西普在不同的注射方案和不同的静脉阻塞类型治疗中体现出更优的效果,即更少的注射次数或更好的黄斑水肿消退效果。     

单次玻璃体腔注射雷珠单抗联合激光治疗视网膜分支静脉阻塞继发黄斑水肿

目的：观察单次玻璃体腔注射雷珠单抗联合激光光凝治疗视网膜分支静脉阻塞继发黄斑水肿的临床疗效。方法：回顾性系列病例研究。选择2014 年6月至2016 年12 月在台州市眼科医院经荧光素眼底血管造影确诊的视网膜分支静脉阻塞继发黄斑水肿的患者52例（52眼）,根据是否联合雷珠单抗治疗分为单纯激光组和联合治疗组,联合治疗组又根据接受雷珠单抗及激光治疗的先后顺序分为先激光组和后激光组。分别测量并记录患者治疗前,治疗后1、6 个月最佳矫正视力（BCVA）及黄斑中心凹厚度（CMT）。采用重复测量方差分析、单因素方差分析和配对t检验对数据进行统计学分析。结果：治疗前,治疗后1、6个月3组间BCVA总体差异有统计学意义（F=18.28,P=0.011）。治疗后1、6个月同一时间点3 组间BCVA比较,单纯激光组分别低于先激光组和后激光组（P < 0.01）。3 组治疗后6 个月BCVA较治疗前均有所提高,差异均有统计学意义（t=8.49、14.57、20.12,P < 0.01）。治疗前,治疗后1、6 个月3 组间CMT值总体差异有统计学意义（F=5.72,P=0.025）。治疗后1、6 个月同一时间点3 组间CMT值比较,单纯激光组分别大于先激光组和后激光组（P < 0.01）。3 组治疗后1、6 个月较治疗前CMT值均有所下降,差异均有统计学意义（P < 0.01）。结论：单次玻璃体腔注射雷珠单抗联合视网膜激光光凝治疗可有效减轻视网膜分支静脉阻塞继发黄斑水肿,提高患者的视力,其作用较单纯激光光凝治疗更加明显。     

雷珠单抗治疗视网膜中央静脉阻塞并发黄斑水肿的报告

目的：：探讨玻璃体腔内注射雷珠单抗治疗视网膜中央静脉阻塞并发黄斑水肿的临床疗效。方法：选取2015-03/09我院收治的视网膜中央静脉阻塞并发黄斑水肿患者30例30眼行雷珠单抗玻璃体腔内注射,1次/mo,治疗1~3mo,治疗结束后随诊3mo,比较患者注射后最佳矫正视力、眼压、黄斑中心凹视网膜厚度、黄斑水肿消退率及眼底荧光血管造影检查结果。结果：随着雷珠单抗注射次数的增加,患者的最佳矫正视力逐渐提高(P<0.05),黄斑中心凹视网膜厚度明显下降(P<0.05),眼压与治疗前比较并无明显变化(P>0.05)。第1、2、3次注射后患者黄斑水肿消退率分别为47%、68%、94%。结论：玻璃体腔内注射雷珠单抗能够有效缓解视网膜中央静脉阻塞继发的黄斑水肿,明显改善患者的视力。     

玻璃体腔注射Ranibizumab联合激光治疗BRVO继发黄斑水肿的观察

目的：评价玻璃体腔注射ranibizumab(雷珠单抗)联合激光治疗视网膜分支静脉阻塞(branch retinal vein occlusion,BRVO)继发黄斑水肿(macular edema)的临床疗效。

方法：经眼底荧光血管造影(fundus fluorescence angiography,FFA)及光学相干断层扫描(optical coherence tomography,OCT)检查确诊为BRVO合并黄斑水肿的患者78例78眼,随机选取A组26例26眼,行黄斑部格栅光凝(grid laser photocoagulation,GLP); B组26例26眼,先行黄斑部格栅光凝,1wk后再行玻璃体腔注射ranibizumab治疗; C组26例26眼,先行玻璃体腔注射ranibizumab治疗,1wk后再行黄斑部格栅光凝,三组黄斑水肿无显著性差异。对比分析三组治疗前,治疗后1wk,1及6mo患者最佳矫正视力(best corrected visual acuity,BCVA)、黄斑中心厚度(central macular thickness,CMT)的变化。

结果：治疗后1wk与治疗前相比：A组BCVA平均值、CMT平均值变化差异无统计学意义(P>0.05); B、C组BCVA平均值提高,CMT平均值降低,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05); 组间比较BCVA变化、CMT变化差异具有显著统计学意义(P<0.01)。治疗后1,6mo与治疗前相比,三组BCVA平均值提高,CMT平均值降低,差异均具有显著统计学意义(P<0.01); 组间比较BCVA变化、CMT变化差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。治疗后6mo与治疗后1mo相比,A、B组BCVA平均值、CMT平均值变化差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05); C组BCVA平均值提高,CMT平均值降低,差异具有显著统计学意义(P<0.01); 组间比较BCVA变化、CMT变化差异具有统计学意义(P<0.01)。

结论：玻璃体腔注射Ranibizumab联合激光治疗可有效的减轻BRVO所致黄斑水肿,提升视力; 其作用较单纯GLP治疗起效更迅速、能更好的减轻黄斑水肿; 于黄斑格栅光凝治疗前先行玻璃体腔注射ranibizumab治疗效果更为确切、稳定性更强。     

地塞米松玻璃体内植入剂联合抗VEGF药物治疗视网膜静脉阻塞

目的：比较地塞米松玻璃体内植入剂联合抗VEGF药物与抗VEGF药物单药治疗视网膜静脉阻塞继发黄斑水肿(RVO-ME)的疗效和安全性。

方法：选取2019-06/2020-12在厦门大学附属厦门眼科中心确诊为视网膜中央静脉阻塞(CRVO)或视网膜分支静脉阻塞(BRVO)继发黄斑水肿的患者133例133眼,其中CRVO-ME患者48眼,BRVO-ME患者85眼。将纳入患者随机分组,其中单药治疗组66眼接受每月注射康柏西普1次,连续3mo,之后每月复诊; 联合治疗组67眼接受地塞米松玻璃体内植入剂注射1次,1wk后注射康柏西普1次,之后每月复诊。随访6mo,观察两组患者最佳矫正视力(BCVA)和中央视网膜厚度(CRT)改善情况,记录康柏西普注射次数及与玻璃体腔注射治疗相关的眼部及全身不良事件发生情况。

结果：治疗后1、2、3、6mo,两组患者BCVA和CRT均较治疗前显著改善,但两组间BCVA和CRT改善程度均无差异(P>0.05)。首次玻璃体腔注射至治疗6mo时,单药治疗组和联合治疗组康柏西普玻璃体腔注射次数分别为3.56±0.12、2.96±0.17次,联合治疗组注射次数显著低于单药治疗组(P=0.004)。随访期间,联合治疗组高眼压和白内障发生率均高于单药治疗组。

结论：地塞米松玻璃体内植入剂联合抗VEGF药物是治疗RVO-ME的有效方法,可显著改善视力,降低CRT,该治疗方案可在减少抗VEGF药物注射次数的同时达到与抗VEGF药物单药治疗相似的疗效,但需要监控眼压变化及白内障进展情况。     

Functional and anatomical results after a single intravitreal Ozurdex injection in retinal vein occlusion: a 6‐month follow‐up – The SOLO study

Purpose:  To evaluate the efficacy of intravitreal dexamethasone implants in eyes with cystoid macular oedema (CME) secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) or central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) in the clinical everyday practice, examine the effects of early retreatment and compare the results with the GENEVA study. Methods:  The charts of 102 patients (102 eyes) with CME secondary to BRVO (n = 54) or CRVO (n = 48) treated with Ozurdex at 8 centres were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were examined monthly over a 24‐week period. Slit‐lamp biomicroscopy, measurement of best‐corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and measurement of the central retinal thickness (CRT) with spectral‐domain optical coherence tomography (SD‐OCT) were performed at baseline and at every follow‐up examination. With progression of the disease (loss of one line or increased central retinal thickness (CRT) of 150 μm), a reinjection of Ozurdex or anti‐VEGF was offered. Additional supplementing sectorial or panretinal laser photocoagulation was considered based on the individual status of the retina. Results:  In the BRVO group, the median BCVA was 0.6 logMAR (Snellen equivalent of 0.25) at baseline and improved to 0.4 logMAR (Snellen equivalent of 0.40) after 4 weeks, 0.3 logMAR (Snellen equivalent of 0.50) after 8 weeks, 0.4 logMAR (Snellen equivalent of 0.40) after 12 weeks, 0.5 logMAR (Snellen equivalent of 0.32) after 16 weeks, 0.4 logMAR (Snellen equivalent of 0.40) after 20 weeks and 0.45 logMAR (Snellen equivalent of 0.35) after 24 weeks. The mean CRT was 559 ± (SD) 209 μm at baseline and it decreased to 335 ± 148 μm after 4 weeks, 316 ± 137 μm after 8 weeks, 369 ± 126 μm after 12 weeks, 407 ± 161 μm after 16 weeks, 399 ± 191 μm after 20 weeks and 419 ± 196 μm after 24 weeks. In the CRVO group, the median BCVA was 0.7 logMAR (Snellen equivalent of 0.20) at baseline and improved to 0.4 logMAR (Snellen equivalent of 0.40) after 4 weeks, 0.4 logMAR (Snellen equivalent of 0.40) after 8 weeks, 0.6 logMAR (Snellen equivalent of 0.25) after 12 weeks, 0.6 logMAR (Snellen equivalent of 0.25) after 16 weeks, 0.5 logMAR (Snellen equivalent of 0.32) after 20 weeks and 0.52 logMAR (Snellen equivalent of 0.30) after 24 weeks. The mean CRT at baseline was 740 ± 351 μm and it decreased to 419 ± 315 μm after 4 weeks, 352 ± 261 μm after 8 weeks, 455 ± 251 μm after 12 weeks, 497 ± 280 μm after 16 weeks, 468 ± 301 μm after 20 weeks and 395 ± 234 μm after 24 weeks. The BCVA improvement was statistically significantly better (p < 0.05) compared with baseline in both groups at every follow‐up visit. The mean CRT maintained significantly better when compared with baseline in both groups at all follow‐up visits. Early reinjection was indicated in BRVO in 40.7% after 17.5 ± 4.2 weeks and in CRVO in 50% after 17.68 ± 4.2. Six eyes (11%) with BRVO received a sectorial laser photocoagulation at a mean interval of 22 ± 5.0 weeks. Seven eyes (15%) with CRVO received a panretinal laser photocoagulation after a mean interval of 18 ± 7.0 weeks. The BCVA improvement and the mean CRT reduction were statistically significant (p < 0.05) compared with baseline in both groups at every follow‐up visit. Conclusions:  Dexamethasone intravitreal implant resulted in a significant improvement of the BCVA and reduction of CME in patients with BRVO or CRVO. Early retreatment after 16 weeks instead of 24 weeks, like in the GENEVA study, was indicated in 50% to stabilize the improved functional and anatomical results.     

量化OCTA在视网膜静脉阻塞中的应用

目的:应用光学相干断层扫描血管成像技术(OCTA)测量视网膜静脉阻塞(RVO)患者黄斑区血流密度、黄斑中心凹无血管区(FAZ)面积和黄斑中心凹视网膜厚度。方法:选取RVO患者30例30眼,视网膜中央静脉阻塞(CRVO)和视网膜分支静脉阻塞(BRVO)患者各15例,双眼接受OCTA检查,获取黄斑中心3mm×3mm大小范围的血流密度、FAZ面积、黄斑中心凹视网膜厚度,以及双眼最佳矫正视力(BCVA)。比较患眼与健眼上述指标的变化及其与BCVA的相关性。结果:CRVO患者患眼黄斑区视网膜浅层毛细血管网(SVN)、深层毛细血管网(DVN)总血流密度较健眼降低[SVN:(43.07±4.95)%vs(50.09±2.86)%,DVN:(45.89±4.12)%vs(53.29±2.62)%,均P<0.01],与BCVA呈负相关(r_s=-0.6、-0.5,均P<0.05)。BRVO患者患眼SVN、DVN总血流密度较健眼降低[SVN:(45.62±3.04)%vs(52.10±2.98%),DVN:(49.21±3.80)%vs(55.52±3.33%),均P<0.01],与BCVA呈负相关(r_s=-0.5、-0.5,均P<0.05)。BRVO患眼病变区域与患眼未病变区域、健眼对应区域比较,SVN、DVN血流密度均下降(均P<0.01);患眼未病变区域DVN血流密度较健眼相应区域下降[(56.86±1.95)%vs(58.15±2.24)%,P=0.02];患眼病变区域DVN血流密度与BCVA呈负相关(r_s=-0.6,P=0.01)。CRVO、BRVO患眼SVN的FAZ面积较健眼明显扩大(CRVO:0.515±0.26mm²vs 0.27±0.08mm²,P<0.01;BRVO:0.376±0.12mm²vs 0.261±0.07mm²,P<0.01),且均与BCVA呈正相关(CRVO:r_s=0.6,P=0.01;BRVO:r_s=0.5,P=0.01)。CRVO、BRVO患眼黄斑中心凹视网膜厚度均较健眼增加(CRVO:431.2±191.3μm vs 235.5±18.2μm,P<0.01;BRVO:373.2±188.7μm vs 233.8±13.7μm,P=0.01),均与BCVA呈正相关(CRVO:r_s=0.9,P=0.01;BRVO:r_s=0.6,P=0.01)。结论:OCTA可作为测量RVO患者黄斑区血流密度、FAZ面积及黄斑中心凹视网膜厚度的有效工具。     

Evaluation of hyperreflective foci as a prognostic factor of visual outcome in retinal vein occlusion

AIM: To evaluate the potential role of hyperreflective foci (HF) as a prognostic indicator of visual outcome in patients with macular edema (ME) due to retinal vein occlusion (RVO). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 50 eyes of 50 patients with ME due to ischemic central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO), non-ischemic CRVO and branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) who were treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) at Beijing Tongren Eye Center from January 2013 to July 2016. All patients underwent best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) at baseline and follow-up. Such factors were evaluated and compared among three groups as baseline and final BCVA, central retinal thickness (CRT), external limiting membrane (ELM) status and the numbers of HF in different position. Multiple linear regression analysis was employed to analyze the relationship between baseline HF and final BCVA. Changes of HF before and after treatment were evaluated too. RESULTS: Among three groups, HF could be located in each retinal layers, as well as in vitreous cavity. The mean HF in outer retinal layer (ORL) at baseline was 5.29±8.48 in ischemic CRVO with intact ELM, 1.93±2.76 in non-ischemic CRVO, and 1.75±2.05 in BRVO. With disrupted ELM, the mean HF in ORL increased. There was statistically difference of HF in ORL between intact and disrupted ELM. The numbers of HF in ORL were associated with poor visual outcome among three groups. However, HF in inner retinal layer (IRL) and vitreous cavity were not associated with poor visual outcome. Meanwhile, the baseline HF in ORL and vitreous cavity reduced significantly in non-ischemic CRVO and BRVO after anti-VEGF treatment. CONCLUSION: The numbers of HF in ORL are prognostic factors associated with the final BCVA in patients with ME due to RVO after anti-VEGF treatment.     

贝伐单抗治疗视网膜中央静脉阻塞（CRVO）继发黄斑水肿的短期疗效及影响因素分析

目的　观察玻璃体内注射贝伐单抗治疗视网膜中央静脉阻塞（central retinal vein occlusion,CRVO）继发黄斑水肿患者的临床特征及疗效,探讨对短期黄斑水肿恢复有影响的因素。方法　回顾性分析60例60眼CRVO继发黄斑水肿患者,采用玻璃体内注射贝伐单抗1.25 mg（0.05 mL）,必要时重复治疗,随访3个月观察患者最佳矫正视力（best-corrected visual acuity,BCVA）及黄斑中心视网膜厚度（central retinal thickness,CRT）改变。根据治疗后3个月时CRT恢复水平,分析患者的年龄、病程、基线视力、基线CRT、高血压及糖尿病、黄斑囊样水肿（cystoid macular edema,CME）或视网膜下液体（subretinal fluid,SRF）情况对黄斑水肿恢复的影响。结果　BCVA从基线（0.897±0.395）LogMAR提高到治疗后1个月的（0.616±0.350）LogMAR,并稳定持续至治疗后3个月（P＜0.001）,同时CRT从基线（721.2±180.8）μm降低到治疗后3个月的（392.1±185.4）μm（P＜0.001）。治疗后3个月56.7%的CME和超过90%的SRF均得到完全缓解。年龄和基线CRT低提示治疗后3个月时CRT恢复较好（P=0.036、0.037）。年龄大的患者（＞60岁）治疗后黄斑水肿消除更多（P=0.031）,治疗后3个月时CRT更低（P=0.003）。结论　玻璃体内注射贝伐单抗能有效提高BCVA并降低CRT。年龄大和基线CRT低提示治疗后3个月时CRT恢复较好。CRT的降低主要取决于CME是否消除,而与SRF无关。     

玻璃体腔内注射TA与雷珠单抗治疗CRVO继发黄斑水肿的对照研究

目的：比较曲安奈德(TA)与雷珠单抗(ranibizumab)治疗视网膜中央静脉阻塞(central retinal vein occlusion,CRVO)继发黄斑水肿的的临床疗效及安全性。

方法：回顾性分析继发黄斑水肿的CRVO患者40例40眼。其中20例20眼接受玻璃体腔注射TA(1mg,0.1mL)治疗,其余20例20眼接受玻璃体腔注射雷珠单抗(0.5mg,0.05mL)治疗。观察两组治疗前及治疗后1,2wk; 1,2,3,6mo患者最佳矫正视力、黄斑中心凹厚度(CMT)及眼压的改变。

结果：TA组及雷珠单抗组于玻璃体腔注药1,2wk; 1,2,3,6mo后最佳矫正视力较治疗前明显提高(P<0.05); 但两组之间无明显差异(P>0.05)。两组于玻璃体注药后1,2wk; 1,2,3,6mo,CMT较治疗前有明显降低(P<0.05),但两组之间无明显差异(P>0.05)。TA组玻璃体腔注药后2wk及4wk眼压较治疗前明显升高(P<0.05)。雷珠单抗组玻璃体腔注药后各时间点眼压均无明显升高(P>0.05)。注药后第1,2wk; 2,3,6mo,TA组眼压改变与雷珠单抗组无明显差异(P>0.05),注药后1mo,TA组眼压改变要明显高于雷珠单抗组(P<0.05)。

结论：玻璃体腔内注射雷珠单抗是目前CRVO继发黄斑水肿的有效而且安全的治疗手段。与TA相比其在提高最佳矫正视力及降低CMT的同时几乎不会发生眼部及全身并发症。     

红花黄色素注射液联合抗VEGF药物治疗非缺血性视网膜中央静脉阻塞

目的：分析红花黄色素注射液联合抗血管内皮生长因子(VEGF)药物治疗非缺血性视网膜中央静脉阻塞(CRVO)的疗效和安全性。

方法：选取2017-04/2021-12于南昌大学附属眼科医院接受治疗的非缺血性CRVO合并黄斑水肿患者91例91眼，随机分为观察组(47例47眼，采用红花黄色素注射液联合玻璃体腔注射雷珠单抗治疗)和对照组(44例44眼，采用玻璃体腔注射雷珠单抗治疗)。随访11mo，观察两组患者最佳矫正视力(BCVA)和中心凹视网膜厚度(CRT)改善情况，并记录视网膜出血完全吸收、抗VEGF药物注射次数、缺血性CRVO发生情况及全身和眼部并发症发生情况。

结果：治疗后1、2、3、5、7、9、11mo，两组患者BCVA和CRT均较治疗前显著改善，且治疗后3、5、7、9、11mo，观察组患者BCVA和CRT均优于对照组(均P<0.05)。治疗后5、7、9、11mo时，观察组患者视网膜出血完全吸收率均高于对照组(P<0.05)。随访期间，观察组患者抗VEGF药物注射次数明显少于对照组(4.83±1.05次 vs 5.75±1.01次，P<0.05)，缺血性CRVO发生率明显低于对照组(21% vs 86%，P<0.05)，且两组患者均未出现与治疗相关的全身和眼部并发症。

结论：红花黄色素注射液联合抗VEGF药物是治疗非缺血性CRVO安全有效的方法，可显著改善视力，降低CRT，该治疗方案与抗VEGF药物单药治疗相比可增加视网膜出血完全吸收率、减少抗VEGF药物注射次数、减少缺血性CRVO发生率。