+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant for Macular Edema Secondary to Retinal Vein Occlusion: 12-month Follow-Up and Prognostic Factors

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          Purpose: To evaluate anatomical and visual outcomes following intravitreal dexamethasone implantation (Ozurdex) in eyes with visual loss due to macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO) and to identify predictive factors for improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed medical records of 43 consecutive eyes with treatment-naïve ME secondary to recent onset RVO treated with repeated Ozurdex injections on a pro re nata basis. Results: The mean follow-up (FU) duration was 14 months (min. 12, max. 22). Both mean BCVA and central macular thickness improved significantly at the end of the FU period (p = 0.0001), and more than 30% of the eyes gained ≥3 lines within 3 months of repeated injections. Presence of foveal serous retinal detachment and macular ischemia were negatively associated with visual outcomes. Improvements were significantly associated with baseline BCVA and the integrity of the ellipsoid zone. No serious adverse events were recorded. Conclusions: In our study population, Ozurdex was a safe and effective therapeutic option for the treatment of ME associated with RVO. The results suggest that a comprehensive approach in the examination of RVO eyes may help to predict which patients are most likely to benefit from the treatment.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Dexamethasone intravitreal implant in patients with macular edema related to branch or central retinal vein occlusion twelve-month study results.

          To evaluate the safety and efficacy of 1 or 2 treatments with dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX implant) over 12 months in eyes with macular edema owing to branch or central retinal vein occlusion (BRVO or CRVO). Two identical, multicenter, prospective studies included a randomized, 6-month, double-masked, sham-controlled phase followed by a 6-month open-label extension. We included 1256 patients with vision loss owing to macular edema associated with BRVO or CRVO. At baseline, patients received DEX implant 0.7 mg (n = 421), DEX implant 0.35 mg (n = 412), or sham (n = 423) in the study eye. At day 180, patients could receive DEX implant 0.7 mg if best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 250 μm. The primary outcome for the open-label extension was safety; BCVA was also evaluated. At day 180, 997 patients received open-label DEX implant. Except for cataract, the incidence of ocular adverse events was similar in patients who received their first or second DEX implant. Over 12 months, cataract progression occurred in 90 of 302 phakic eyes (29.8%) that received 2 DEX implant 0.7 mg injections versus 5 of 88 sham-treated phakic eyes (5.7%); cataract surgery was performed in 4 of 302 (1.3%) and 1 of 88 (1.1%) eyes, respectively. In the group receiving two 0.7-mg DEX implants (n = 341), a ≥ 10-mmHg intraocular pressure (IOP) increase from baseline was observed in (12.6% after the first treatment, and 15.4% after the second). The IOP increases were usually transient and controlled with medication or observation; an additional 10.3% of patients initiated IOP-lowering medications after the second treatment. A ≥ 15-letter improvement in BCVA from baseline was achieved by 30% and 32% of patients 60 days after the first and second DEX implant, respectively. Among patients with macular edema owing to BRVO or CRVO, single and repeated treatment with DEX implant had a favorable safety profile over 12 months. In patients who qualified for and received 2 DEX implant injections, the efficacy and safety of the 2 implants were similar with the exception of cataract progression. Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references. Copyright © 2011 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Natural history of branch retinal vein occlusion: an evidence-based systematic review.

            To describe the natural history of branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) based on the best available evidence from the literature. Branch retinal vein occlusion is the second most frequent major retinal vascular disease. Although several new treatments for BRVO are currently being introduced, data on its natural history are sparse. English language articles were retrieved using a keyword search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, and the Cochrane Library to November 13, 2008, supplemented by manually searching the references of review articles published within the last 5 years. All relevant observational studies evaluating the natural history of BRVO and all clinical trials evaluating BRVO interventions with an untreated control arm were independently identified by 2 investigators. Of a total of 5965 citations retrieved, 24 eligible studies were identified and reviewed, providing 1608 eyes with BRVO with data on natural history. Visual acuity (VA) was moderately poor at baseline (<20/40). Although VA generally improved, with mean improvement ranging from 1 letter at 6 weeks to 28 letters up to 24 months, few studies reported improvement beyond 20/40. Over a 1-year period, 5% to 15% of eyes developed macular edema (ME), but of those with ME at baseline, 18% to 41% resolved. At baseline, 5% to 6% of eyes had bilateral BRVO, with 10% developing fellow eye involvement over time. There were few high-quality studies on other outcomes, including development of new vessels. Visual acuity generally improved in eyes with BRVO without intervention, although clinically significant improvement beyond 20/40 was uncommon. Copyright 2010 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion: Pathogenesis, Visual Prognosis, and Treatment Modalities

              In branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO), abnormal arteriovenous crossing with vein compression, degenerative changes of the vessel wall and abnormal hematological factors constitute the primary mechanism of vessel occlusion. In general, BRVO has a good prognosis: 50–60% of eyes are reported to have a final visual acuity (VA) of 20/40 or better even without treatment. One important prognostic factor for final VA appears to be the initial VA. Grid laser photocoagulation is an established treatment for macular edema in a particular group of patients with BRVO, while promising results for this condition are shown by intravitreal application of steroids or new vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors. Vitrectomy with or without arteriovenous sheathotomy combined with removal of the internal limiting membrane may improve vision in eyes with macular edema which are unresponsive to or ineligible for laser treatment.

                Author and article information

                S. Karger AG
                December 2014
                28 November 2014
                : 232
                : 4
                : 207-215
                aSacrocuore Hospital, Negrar, and bDepartment of Computer Science, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
                Author notes
                *Emilia Maggio, Via Don Sempreboni, 5, IT-37024 Negrar, Verona (Italy), E-Mail emi_maggio@yahoo.it
                364956 Ophthalmologica 2014;232:207-215
                © 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 3, Pages: 9
                Original Paper


                Comment on this article