首页> 外文期刊>Retina Today >Retina Today - Macular Edema Associated With Retinal Vein Occlusion (April 2010)
【24h】

Retina Today - Macular Edema Associated With Retinal Vein Occlusion (April 2010)

机译:今日视网膜-黄斑水肿伴视网膜静脉阻塞(2010年4月)

获取原文
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) and branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) are common retinal vascular disorders. Branch retinal vein occlusion has been said to be second only to diabetic retinopathy in the frequency with which it produces retinal vascular disease.1 Macular edema is a frequent cause of visual acuity loss in CRVO and BRVO.1-4 In the Central Vein Occlusion Study (CVOS), 728 eyes with CRVO were studied.2 Of these 728 eyes, 155 (21%) had macular edema reducing visual acuity to 20/50 or worse (group M eyes, macular edema). In the largest group of eyes (group P, perfused) which included 547 eyes, 84% (460 eyes) had angiographic evidence of macular edema involving the fovea at baseline. The natural history of macular edema secondary to CRVO was first delineated in the CVOS.2-4 The group M arm of the CVOS evaluated the treatment of macular edema in CRVO with grid laser photocoagulation in 155 eyes (77 treated eyes and 78 control eyes) over a 3-year followup period. All eyes had macular edema for a minimum of 3 months prior to enrollment.4 For untreated eyes with an initial visual acuity between 20/50 and 5/200 at presentation (n=78 eyes), 53 eyes were available for follow up at the 2 year visit. Of these eyes, 10 (19%) gained two or more lines of visual acuity at the 2-year follow up. Thirty-one eyes (59%) remained within one line of baseline visual acuity and 12 eyes (22%) lost two or more lines of visual acuity at the 2-year follow-up. The final median visual acuity in untreated eyes was 20/160. The CVOS found no significant difference in visual outcome between the treatment and observation groups at any follow-up point. Although there was a definite decrease in macular edema on fluorescein angiography in the treatment group when compared to the control group, this did not translate to a direct visual improvement. 4 The Branch Vein Occlusion Study (BVOS) reported on the natural history of macular edema due to BRVO.1 All eyes had macular edema for 3 to 18 months prior to study entry; eyes with obvious areas of capillary nonperfusion in the macula were excluded from the study. After 3 years, of 35 untreated eyes available for follow-up, only 12 eyes (34%) with a presenting visual acuity of 20/40 or worse achieved a visual acuity of 20/40 or better. Furthermore, eight eyes (23%) had 20/200 or worse visual acuity at their final 3-year follow-up visit. The group III arm of the Branch Vein Occlusion Study (BVOS) was designed to evaluate grid photocoagulation treatment of macular edema secondary to BRVO that had persisted for at least 3 months (and less than 18 months), in eyes with visual acuity of 20/40 or worse. One-hundred thirty-nine eyes (71 treated eyes and 68 control eyes) were studied. This arm of the study demonstrated a benefit for eyes treated with macular grid photocoagulation.1 Of 43 treated eyes available for follow up at the 3-year visit, 28 eyes (65%) had gained two or more lines of visual acuity from baseline and maintained this gain for at least 8 months, as compared with the same gain in 13 of 35 (37%) untreated eyes. At the 3-year visit, nearly twice as large a percentage of treated vs control eyes had visual acuity of 20/40 or better. Although the BVOS demonstrated a visual acuity benefit for eyes treated with grid photocoagulation, the BVOS also identified a subset of patients who derive limited benefit from macular grid photocoagulation. In the BVOS 40% of treated eyes (n=43) had worse than 20/40 vision at 3 years and 12% of treated eyes had 20/200 or worse visual acuity at 3 years.1 The lack of a proven and effective therapy for macular edema secondary to CRVO, the suboptimal outcomes of grid photocoagulation treatment for macular edema secondary to BRVO, and community enthusiasm for intravitreal triamcinolone provided strong rationale for initiating the Standard Care versus Corticosteroid for Retinal Vein Occlusion (SCO
机译:视网膜中央静脉阻塞(CRVO)和视网膜分支静脉阻塞(BRVO)是常见的视网膜血管疾病。视网膜视网膜静脉阻塞的发生频率据认为仅次于糖尿病性视网膜病变,仅次于糖尿病性视网膜病变。1黄斑水肿是CRVO和BRVO视力丧失的常见原因。1-4在中央静脉阻塞研究中(CVOS),研究了728眼CRVO。2在这728眼中,有155眼(21%)患有黄斑水肿,视力降低至20/50或更低(M组眼,黄斑水肿)。在包括547眼的最大眼组(P组,灌注)中,有84%(460眼)的血管造影证据显示基线时黄斑水肿累及中央凹。在CVOS中首先描述了CRVO继发的黄斑水肿的自然病史。2-4CVOS的M组评估了155眼(77眼和78眼对照)的栅格激光光凝对CRVO中黄斑水肿的治疗效果。在三年的随访期内。在入组前,所有眼睛均出现黄斑水肿至少3个月。4对于初诊时视力在20/50至5/200之间的未经治疗的眼(n = 78眼),有53眼可在随访时进行随访。 2年访问。在两年的随访中,其中有10只(19%)的视力达到了两条或更多条。在两年的随访中,有31眼(59%)保持在基线视力范围内,而12眼(22%)失去了2条或更多线视力。未经治疗的眼睛的最终中位视力为20/160。 CVOS在任何随访点均未发现治疗组和观察组的视觉结果有显着差异。尽管与对照组相比,治疗组在荧光素血管造影上黄斑水肿明显减少,但这并不能直接改善视力。 4分支静脉闭塞研究(BVOS)报告了BRVO引起的黄斑水肿的自然病史。1在进入研究之前,所有眼睛均出现黄斑水肿3至18个月。该研究排除了在黄斑区有明显毛细血管非灌注区域的眼睛。 3年后,可用于随访的35只未经治疗的眼睛中,只有12眼(34%)的视力为20/40或更差,达到了20/40或更高的视力。此外,八只眼(23%)在最后3年的随访中视力为20/200或更差。分支静脉阻塞研究(BVOS)的第III组手臂旨在评估在视力为20 //的情况下持续至少3个月(且少于18个月)的BRVO继发性黄斑水肿的网格光凝治疗效果。 40或更低。研究了一百三十九只眼(71只治疗眼和68只对照眼)。该研究手臂对经黄斑栅格光凝治疗的眼睛有好处。1在3年随访中可进行随访的43只治疗眼睛中,有28只眼睛(65%)的基线和基线获得了两条或更多条视力与35只未经处理的眼睛中的13只(37%)的相同增益相比,该增益至少可以维持8个月。在3年的访问中,视力达到20/40或更好的人几乎占治疗眼与对照眼的两倍。尽管BVOS对使用网格光凝治疗的眼睛显示了视敏度的好处,但BVOS还确定了从黄斑部网格光凝获得有限益处的部分患者。在BVOS中,接受治疗的3年中有40%(n = 43)的眼睛视力较差,而接受治疗的3%中有12%的眼睛的视力较差20/200或更低。1对于CRVO继发的黄斑水肿,栅格光凝治疗BRVO继发的黄斑水肿的次优结果,以及社区对玻璃体曲安奈德的热情为开展标准治疗与皮质类固醇视网膜静脉阻塞(SCO)提供了强有力的理由

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号