• C Chiquet, C Dupuy, A M Bron, F Aptel, M Straub, R Isaico, J P Romanet, and C Creuzot-Garcher.
• Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital, Grenoble, France. cchiquet@chu-grenoble.fr.
• Graefes Arch. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 2015 Dec 1; 253 (12): 2095-102.

PurposeThe objective of his study was to compare the visual and anatomical outcomes in treatment-naïve patients with macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion after intravitreal injections of dexamethasone implants (DEX) and anti-VEGF.MethodsOne hundred two patients (64 in the anti-VEGF group, 38 in the DEX group) without previous treatment were included in this multi-center retrospective study and evaluated at baseline and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after the onset of treatment. Patients were defined as "good responders" if central macular thickness (CMT) was less than or equal to 250 μm in TD-OCT or 300 μm in SD-OCT after the injections.ResultsAt month 3 (n = 102), BCVA had increased significantly, by 0.1 ± 0.3 logMAR in the anti-VEGF group (p = 0.04) and 0.4 ± 0.4 logMAR in the DEX group (p < 0.001); the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (p = 0.007). CMT decreased significantly, by 138 ± 201 μm (-19 %, p < 0.001) in the anti-VEGF group and 163 ± 243 μm (-21 %, p < 0.001) in the DEX group. After 3 months, five patients (13 %) in the DEX group and 20 (31 %) in the anti-VEGF group (p < 0.001) changed treatment. Among the 77 patients who did not switch from their initial treatment, no significant functional or anatomical difference between the two groups was observed at months 6 and 12. Elevation of intraocular pressure > 21 mmHg was more frequent in the DEX group (21 %) than in the anti-VEGF group (3 %, p = 0.008).ConclusionsVisual acuity recovery was better in the DEX group than in the anti-VEGF group at month 3, but with no difference in CMT. In patients who did not change treatment, the long-term anatomical and visual outcome was similar between the DEX and anti-VEGF groups.

35 keywords...

hide…