Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of immediate versus deferred intravitreal Bevacizumab in macular oedema due to branch retinal vein occlusion: a pilot study

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare visual and anatomical recovery of immediate versus deferred intravitreal Bevacizumab for the treatment of macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO).

Methods

In a pilot study, 40 treatment naïve patients of branch retinal vein occlusion with macular oedema and vision 6/12 or less presenting within one month of onset were randomised into 2 groups (20 each) to receive either immediate intravitreal Bevacizumab or deferred (after 3 months of observation). Outcome in terms of visual recovery and decrease in central macular thickness on the Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) from pre-treatment level was analysed at 6 and 12 months from starting of treatment and compared between the two groups.

Results

The mean visual gain in the two groups early and delayed intervention was 0.38 log MARs and 0.15 log MAR units, respectively, and the superior vision gain in the early intervention group was statistically significant (p < 0.001). The difference in visual improvement between the two groups persisted till 1 year of follow-up. The early intervention group required fewer injections (2.6 ± 71 vs. 3.5 ± 0.51), and rescue laser treatment (15 vs. 25%) as compared to deferred group. Both groups showed significant decrease in central macular thickness (328 and 289 µ, respectively) from baseline thickness, but the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.45).

Conclusions

Both early as well as deferred injection of Bevacizumab in macular oedema due to BRVO resulted in reduction of macular oedema and visual gain but immediate injection were associated with significantly greater visual gain with lesser number of injections fewer rescue laser treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rogers S, McIntosh RL, Cheung N, Lim L, Wang JJ, Mitchell P, Kowalski JW, Nguyen H, Wong TY (2010) International Eye Disease Consortium. The prevalence of retinal vein occlusion: pooled data from population studies from the United States, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Ophthalmology 117(2):313–319

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Rogers SL, McIntosh RL, Lim L, Mitchell P, Cheung N, Kowalski JW, Nguyen HP, Wang JJ, Wong TY (2010) Natural history of branch retinal vein occlusion: an evidence-based systematic review. Ophthalmology 117(6):1094–1101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Laouri M, Chen E, Looman M, Gallagher M (2011) The burden of disease of retinal vein occlusion: review of the literature. Eye 25(8):981–988

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Jaulim A, Ahmed B, Khanam T, Chatziralli IP (2013) Branch retinal vein occlusion: epidemiology, pathogenesis, risk factors, clinical features, diagnosis, and complications. An update of the literature. Retina 33(5):901–910

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Branch Vein Occlusion Study Group (1984) Argon laser photocoagulation for macular edema in branch vein occlusion. Am J Ophthalmol 98(3):271–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Glanville J, Patterson J, McCool R, Ferreira A, Gairy K, Pearce I (2014) Efficacy and safety of widely used treatments for macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion: a systematic review. BMC Ophthalmol 14(1):1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Pielen A, Feltgen N, Isserstedt C, Callizo J, Junker B, Schmucker C (2013) Efficacy and safety of intravitreal therapy in macular edema due to branch and central retinal vein occlusion: a systematic review. PLoS ONE 8(10):e78538

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Pichi F, Specchia C, Vitale L, Lembo A, Morara M, Veronese C, Ciardella AP, Nucci P (2014) Combination therapy with dexamethasone intravitreal implant and macular grid laser in patients with branch retinal vein occlusion. Am J Ophthalmol 157(3):607–615.e1

  9. Mitry D, Bunce C, Charteris D (2013) Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD009510. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009510.pub2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Brown DM, Campochiaro PA, Bhisitkul RB, Ho AC, Gray S, Saroj N, Adamis AP, Rubio RG, Murahashi WY (2011) Sustained benefits from Ranibizumab for macular edema following branch retinal vein occlusion: 12-month outcomes of a phase III study. Ophthalmology 118(8):1594–1602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. SCORE Study Research Group (2009) A randomized trial comparing the efficacy and safety of intravitreal triamcinolone with standard care to treat vision loss associated with macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion: the Standard Care vs Corticosteroid for Retinal Vein Occlusion (SCORE) Study report 6. Arch Ophthalmol 127(9):1115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ho M, Liu DT, Lam DS, Jonas JB (2016) Retinal vein occlusions, from basics to the latest treatment. Retina 36(3):432–448

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Leitritz MA, Gelisken F, Ziemssen F, Szurman P, Bartz-Schmidt KU, Jaissle GB (2013) Grid laser photocoagulation for macular oedema due to branch retinal vein occlusion in the age of bevacizumab? Results of a prospective study with crossover design. Br J Ophthalmol 97(2):215–219

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wang MD, Jeng-Miller KW, Feng HL, Prenner JL, Fine HF, Shah SP (2015) Retina specialists treating cystoid macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion recommend different treatments for patients than they would choose for themselves. Br J Ophthalmol Dec 30:bjophthalmol-2015

  15. Jun Lee S, Jun Koh H (2009) Enlargement of the foveal avascular zone in diabetic retinopathy after adjunctive intravitreal bevacizumab (avastin) with pars plana vitrectomy. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 25(2):173–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Jeon S, Lee WK (2012) Aggravated capillary non-perfusion after intravitreal bevacizumab for macular edema secondary to systemic lupus erythematosus and anti-phospholipid syndrome. Lupus 21(3):335–337

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Setta M, Ozaki S, Tabuchi A (2016) Long-term outcomes in eyes receiving of Bevacizumab early in the course of branch retinal vein occlusion. Nippon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi 120(5):396

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ho AC (2010) Subgroup analyses of month 12 visual acuity outcomes in the BRAVO study. In: Retina Society Annual Meeting 2010 Sep 23

  19. Jaissle GB, Szurman P, Feltgen N, Spitzer B, Pielen A, Rehak M, Spital G, Heimann H, Meyer CH (2011) Retinal vein occlusion study group. Predictive factors for functional improvement after intravitreal bevacizumab therapy for macular edema due to branch retinal vein occlusion. Graef’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 249(2):183–192

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Ach T, Hoeh AE, Schaal KB, Scheuerle AF, Dithmar S (2010) Predictive factors for changes in macular edema in intravitreal bevacizumab therapy of retinal vein occlusion. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 248(2):155–159

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kim YG, Kim ES, Kim MS, Yu SY, Kwak HW (2009) Early and late intravitreal bevacizumab injection in macular edema due to branch retinal vein occlusion. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 50(10):1527–1530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Rehak M, Spies E, Scholz M, Wiedemann P (2013) Intravitreal treatment of patients with branch retinal vein occlusion depending on the duration of macular edema. Der Ophthalmologe: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft. 110(10):966–974

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study did not receive any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, 411040, India

    M. A. Khan

  2. Sankara Eye Hospital, Bangalore, 560007, India

    Varakutti Mallika

  3. Command Hospital Air Force, Bangalore, 560007, India

    Dattakiran Joshi

Authors
  1. M. A. Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Varakutti Mallika
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dattakiran Joshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. A. Khan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

M. A. Khan, Varakutti Mallika and Dattakiran Joshi declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional ethical committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Dr. M. A. Khan and Dr. Varakutti Mallika were formerly at Ophthalmology, Command Hospital Air Force Bangalore, India.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khan, M.A., Mallika, V. & Joshi, D. Comparison of immediate versus deferred intravitreal Bevacizumab in macular oedema due to branch retinal vein occlusion: a pilot study. Int Ophthalmol 38, 943–949 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-017-0538-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-017-0538-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation