Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014:2014:173084.
doi: 10.1155/2014/173084. Epub 2014 Jul 7.

Intravitreal bevacizumab alone or combined with macular laser photocoagulation for recurrent or persistent macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion

Affiliations

Intravitreal bevacizumab alone or combined with macular laser photocoagulation for recurrent or persistent macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion

Takafumi Hirashima et al. J Ophthalmol. 2014.

Abstract

Background. To evaluate the efficacy of intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) injection with or without macular laser photocoagulation (MLP) for recurrent or persistent macular edema (ME) secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). Methods. Thirty-four eyes underwent IVB injection for ME secondary to BRVO as a primary treatment. Twenty of the 34 eyes experienced recurrent or persistent ME after the first IVB. Nine of the 20 eyes (Group 1) were retreated with IVB combined with MLP. The remaining 11 eyes (Group 2) were retreated with IVB alone. Results. In Group 1, the postoperative best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improved compared with the preoperative value at all follow-up visits, although no statistically significant improvement was observed at 6 months. In contrast, BCVA significantly improved from 0.53 to 0.40 at 6 months (P < 0.05) in Group 2. Conclusion. Combined therapy tended to have a smaller effect on visual acuity compared with IVB monotherapy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Best corrected visual acuity in logMAR for both eyes of Group 1 and Group 2. Notes: *P < 0.05, compared with the respective baseline value (just before the second intravitreal bevacizumab treatment).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Central subfield thickness assessed with spectral domain optical coherence tomography in both eyes of Group 1 and Group 2. Notes: *P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, compared with the respective baseline value (just before the second intravitreal bevacizumab treatment).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Scott IU, VanVeldhuisen PC, Oden NL, et al. SCORE study report 1: baseline associations between central retinal thickness and visual acuity in patients with retinal vein occlusion. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(3):504–512. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rehak J, Rehak M. Branch retinal vein occlusion: pathogenesis, visual prognosis, and treatment modalities. Current Eye Research. 2008;33(2):111–131. - PMC - PubMed
    1. McIntosh RL, Mohamed Q, Saw SM, Wong TY. Interventions for branch retinal vein occlusion: an evidence-based systematic review. Ophthalmology. 2007;114(5):835–854. - PubMed
    1. Chang MA, Fine HF, Bass E, et al. Patients' preferences in choosing therapy for retinal vein occlusions. Retina. 2007;27(6):789–797. - PubMed
    1. The Branch Vein Occlusion Study Group. Argon laser photocoagulation for macular edema in branch vein occlusion. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 1984;98(3):271–282. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources