Use of bevacizumab for macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion: a systematic review

Review Article



This systematic review assesses the effectiveness of intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) versus a comparison group in the treatment of branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO)-associated macular edema, and explores its effects on visual acuity (VA) and central macular thickness (CMT).


The authors searched the following databases: Medline (1950–October week 3, 2011), The Cochrane Library (Issue 10, 2011), EMBASE (up to 24 October 2011), and the TRIP Database (up to 24 October 2011), using no language or other limits. Trials that were included consisted of patients with BRVO-associated macular edema, those comparing a 1.25 mg IVB injection with a comparison group, those reporting both VA and CMT outcomes, and those having a minimum follow-up of 4 weeks.


In the four trials comparing IVB with a comparison group, IVB was effective in improving VA and CMT values in the long-term (12 weeks) in patients with BRVO-associated macular edema. Furthermore, statistically significant improvements in VA in the short-term (4 weeks) could also be seen.


Clinicians should use this review as an indicator that IVB is effective in improving VA and CMT values in the long-term in patients with BRVO-associated macular edema. It is important to note, however, that statistically significant improvements in VA in the short term could be seen. This review's main aim was to serve as an evidence base for potentially using other modalities, such as IVB, which seems to be reserved for certain cases.


Bevacizumab Macular edema Branch retinal vein occlusion 


  1. 1.
    David R, Zangwill L, Badarna M, Yassur Y (1988) Epidemiology of retinal vein occlusion and its association with glaucoma and increased intraocular pressure. Ophthalmologica 197(2):69–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Klein R, Klein BE, Moss SE, Meuer SM (2000) The epidemiology of retinal vein occlusion: the Beaver Dam Eye Study. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 98:133–141, discussion 141–133PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mitchell P, Smith W, Chang A (1996) Prevalence and associations of retinal vein occlusion in Australia. The Blue Mountains Eye Study. Arch Ophthalmol 114(10):1243–1247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Laouri M, Chen E, Looman M, Gallagher M (2011) The burden of disease of retinal vein occlusion: review of the literature. Eye 25(8):981–988PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moradian S, Faghihi H, Sadeghi B, Piri N, Ahmadieh H, Soheilian M, Dehghan MH, Azarmina M, Esfahani MR (2011) Intravitreal bevacizumab vs. sham treatment in acute branch retinal vein occlusion with macular edema: results at 3 months (Report 1). Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 249(2):193–200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ehlers JP, Fekrat S (2011) Retinal vein occlusion: beyond the acute event. Surv Ophthalmol 56(4):281–299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    The Branch Vein Occlusion Study Group (1984) Argon laser photocoagulation for macular edema in branch vein occlusion. Am J Ophthalmol 98(3):271–282Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    McIntosh RL, Mohamed Q, Saw SM, Wong TY (2007) Interventions for branch retinal vein occlusion: an evidence-based systematic review. Ophthalmology 114(5):835–854PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Funk M, Kriechbaum K, Prager F, Benesch T, Georgopoulos M, Zlabinger GJ, Schmidt-Erfurth U (2009) Intraocular concentrations of growth factors and cytokines in retinal vein occlusion and the effect of therapy with bevacizumab. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 50(3):1025–1032PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Noma H, Funatsu H, Yamasaki M, Tsukamoto H, Mimura T, Sone T, Hirayama T, Tamura H, Yamashita H, Minamoto A, Mishima HK (2008) Aqueous humour levels of cytokines are correlated to vitreous levels and severity of macular oedema in branch retinal vein occlusion. Eye 22(1):42–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kreutzer TC, Alge CS, Wolf AH, Kook D, Burger J, Strauss R, Kunze C, Haritoglou C, Kampik A, Priglinger S (2008) Intravitreal bevacizumab for the treatment of macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion. Br J Ophthalmol 92(3):351–355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kriechbaum K, Michels S, Prager F, Georgopoulos M, Funk M, Geitzenauer W, Schmidt-Erfurth U (2008) Intravitreal Avastin for macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion: a prospective study. Br J Ophthalmol 92(4):518–522PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chen CH, Chen YH, Wu PC, Chen YJ, Lee JJ, Liu YC, Kuo HK (2010) Treatment of branch retinal vein occlusion induced macular edema in treatment-naive cases with a single intravitreal triamcinolone or bevacizumab injection. Chang Gung Med J 33(4):424–435PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Micieli JA, Micieli A, Smith AF (2010) Identifying systemic safety signals following intravitreal bevacizumab: systematic review of the literature and the Canadian Adverse Drug Reaction Database. Can J Ophthalmol 45(3):231–238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C (1994) Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ 309(6964):1286–1291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17(1):1–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Higgins J, Green S (2006) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.6: Section 6. The Cochrane Library 4Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Çekiç O, Cakir M, Yazici AT, Alagoz N, Bozkurt E, Faruk Yilmaz O (2010) A comparison of three different intravitreal treatment modalities of macular edema due to branch retinal vein occlusion. Curr Eye Res 35(10):925–929PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Russo V, Barone A, Conte E, Prascina F, Stella A, Noci ND (2009) Bevacizumab compared with macular laser grid photocoagulation for cystoid macular edema in branch retinal vein occlusion. Retina 29(4):511–515PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wu WC, Cheng KC, Wu HJ (2009) Intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide vs bevacizumab for treatment of macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion. Eye 23(12):2215–2222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fung AE, Bhisitkul RB (2008) Safety monitoring with ocular anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies. Br J Ophthalmol 92(12):1573–1574PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Network Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research, Scott IU, Edwards AR, Beck RW, Bressler NM, Chan CK, Elman MJ, Friedman SM, Greven CM, Maturi RK, Pieramici DJ, Shami M, Singerman LJ, Stockdale CR (2007) A phase II randomized clinical trial of intravitreal bevacizumab for diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology 114(10):1860–1867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Martin DF, Maguire MG, Ying GS, Grunwald JE, Fine SL, Jaffe GJ (2011) Ranibizumab and bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med 364(20):1897–1908PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Roth DB, King A, Weiss M, Klein D (2009) Systemic adverse events after bevacizumab. Ophthalmology 116(6):1226 e1221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Soheilian M, Ramezani A, Obudi A, Bijanzadeh B, Salehipour M, Yaseri M, Ahmadieh H, Dehghan MH, Azarmina M, Moradian S, Peyman GA (2009) Randomized trial of intravitreal bevacizumab alone or combined with triamcinolone versus macular photocoagulation in diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology 116(6):1142–1150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yilmaz T, Weaver CD, Gallagher MJ, Cordero-Coma M, Cervantes-Castaneda RA, Klisovic D, Lavaque AJ, Larson RJ (2009). Intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection for treatment of refractory diabetic macular edema: a systematic review. Ophthalmology 116(5):902–911, quiz 912–903PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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):1594–1602PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sacu S, Pemp B, Weigert G, Matt G, Garhofer G, Pruente C, Schmetterer L, Schmidt-Erfurth U (2011) Response of retinal vessels and retrobulbar hemodynamics to intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment in eyes with branch retinal vein occlusion. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 52(6):3046–3050PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gillies MC (2006) What we don't know about Avastin might hurt us. Arch Ophthalmol 124(10):1478–1479PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Oosthuyse B, Moons L, Storkebaum E, Beck H, Nuyens D, Brusselmans K, Van Dorpe J, Hellings P, Gorselink M, Heymans S, Theilmeier G, Dewerchin M, Laudenbach V, Vermylen P, Raat H, Acker T, Vleminckx V, Van Den Bosch L, Cashman N, Fujisawa H, Drost MR, Sciot R, Bruyninckx F, Hicklin DJ, Ince C, Gressens P, Lupu F, Plate KH, Robberecht W, Herbert JM, Collen D, Carmeliet P (2001) Deletion of the hypoxia-response element in the vascular endothelial growth factor promoter causes motor neuron degeneration. Nat Genet 28(2):131–138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates, Department of Visual ServicesBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of OphthalmologyHospital de LeónLeónSpain

Personalised recommendations