Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Bevacizumab versus bevacizumab and macular grid photocoagulation for macular edema in eyes with non-ischemic branch retinal vein occlusion: results from a prospective randomized study

  • Retinal Disorders
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The objective of the study was the investigation of the effects of intravitreal bevacizumab (BEV) with or without additional macular grid laser photocoagulation (GRID) for macular edema (ME) secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO).

Methods

Prospective, randomized, monocentric study. Thirty-two patients were included. Initially, all eyes in both groups received three monthly injections of BEV, followed by additional injections if re-treatment criteria were met. In the BEV + GRID group, photocoagulation was performed 2 weeks after the first BEV injection and laser re-treatment was allowed. The follow-up was 38 weeks. Main outcome measures were best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT). Changes of foveal avascular zone (FAZ) and of retinal ischemia, as well as the number of injections were also evaluated.

Results

Sixteen eyes were randomized into each group. At baseline, BCVA was similar in both groups (BEV + GRID: 20/71; BEV: 20/60; P = 0.51). At 38 weeks, BCVA significantly improved in the two groups (BEV + GRID gain of 9 ± 11.2 letters and 16.25 ± 10.08 letters in the BEV) with no difference between them (P < 0.06). With regard to anatomical findings, initial CRT in BEV + GRID was 496.2 μm ± 138.4 μm and 538.9 μm ± 156.9 μm in BEV (P < 0.1697). At 38 weeks, CRT decreased in both groups significantly, 98.2 μm in the BEV + GRID (P = 0.02) and 141.7 μm in the BEV group (P = 0.01), with no significant difference between groups (P < 0.17). The area of FAZ a significantly increased in both groups (41% (P = 0.04) in BEV + GRID; 35% (P = 0.03) in BEV) during the study and the grade of peripheral ischemia remained unchanged. The mean number of injections was 3.8 (range 3–6) with no significant difference between groups.

Conclusions

Our data demonstrate a beneficial effect of bevacizumab in ME in eyes with BRVO. A loading phase of three injections led to a significant improvement in vision in both groups, which persisted at week 38. Additional grid laser photocoagulation exhibited no beneficial functional or anatomical effect during the study, nor did it reduce the number of injections. The FAZ area increased significantly in both groups, but overall retinal ischemia did not. Further studies investigating more numerous eyes and longer follow-up are needed to confirm these data.

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 SL, McIntosh RL, Lim L et al (2010) Natural history of branch retinal vein occlusion: an evidence-based systematic review. Ophthalmology 117:1094–1101.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.01.058

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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 (Philadelphia, Pa) 33:901–910. https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0b013e3182870c15

  3. Ho M, Liu DTL, Lam DSC, Jonas JB (2016) Retinal vein occlusions, from basics to the latest treatment. Retina (Philadelphia, Pa) 36:432–448. https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0000000000000843

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Lam FC, Chia SN, Lee RMH (2015) Macular grid laser photocoagulation for branch retinal vein occlusion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD008732. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008732.pub2

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

  6. Branch Vein Occlusion Study Group (1986) Argon laser scatter photocoagulation for prevention of neovascularization and vitreous hemorrhage in branch vein occlusion. A randomized clinical trial. Arch Ophthalmol 104:34–41

  7. Donati S, Barosi P, Bianchi M et al (2012) Combined intravitreal bevacizumab and grid laser photocoagulation for macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion. Eur J Ophthalmol 22:607–614. https://doi.org/10.5301/ejo.5000085

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Spandau U, Wickenhäuser A, Rensch F, Jonas J (2007) Intravitreal bevacizumab for branch retinal vein occlusion. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 85:118–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0420.2006.00850.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rabena MD, Pieramici DJ, Castellarin AA et al (2007) Intravitreal bevacizumab (Avastin) in the treatment of macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion. Retina (Philadelphia, Pa) 27:419–425. https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0b013e318030e77e

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Pai SA, Shetty R, Vijayan PB et al (2007) Clinical, anatomic, and electrophysiologic evaluation following intravitreal bevacizumab for macular edema in retinal vein occlusion. Am J Ophthalmol 143:601–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2006.12.037

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pielen A, Feltgen N, Isserstedt C et al (2013) Efficacy and safety of intravitreal therapy in macular edema due to branch and central retinal vein occlusion: a systematic review. PLoS One 8:e78538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0078538

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Berger AR, Cruess AF, Altomare F et al (2015) Optimal treatment of retinal vein occlusion: Canadian expert consensus. Ophthalmologica 234:6–25. https://doi.org/10.1159/000381357

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tadayoni R, Waldstein SM, Boscia F et al (2016) Individualized stabilization criteria-driven ranibizumab versus laser in branch retinal vein occlusion: six-month results of BRIGHTER. Ophthalmology 123:1332–1344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.02.030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Azad SV, Salman A, Mahajan D et al (2014) Comparative evaluation between ranibizumab combined with laser and bevacizumab combined with laser versus laser alone for macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol 21:296–301. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-9233.142264

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Taban M, Sharma S, Williams DR et al (2009) Comparing retinal thickness measurements using automated fast macular thickness map versus six-radial line scans with manual measurements. Ophthalmology 116:964–970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.12.033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Jaissle GB, Leitritz M, Gelisken F et al (2009) One-year results after intravitreal bevacizumab therapy for macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 247:27–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-008-0916-2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hikichi T, Higuchi M, Matsushita T et al (2014) Two-year outcomes of intravitreal bevacizumab therapy for macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion. Br J Ophthalmol 98:195–199. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-303121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Yilmaz T, Cordero-Coma M (2012) Use of bevacizumab for macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion: a systematic review. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 250:787–793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-012-2016-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Campochiaro PA, Heier JS, Feiner L et al (2010) Ranibizumab for macular edema following branch retinal vein occlusion: six-month primary end point results of a phase III study. Ophthalmology 117:1102–1112.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.02.021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Clark WL, Boyer DS, Heier JS et al (2016) Intravitreal aflibercept for macular edema following branch retinal vein occlusion: 52-week results of the VIBRANT study. Ophthalmology 123:330–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.09.035

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Salinas-Alamán A, Zarranz-Ventura J, Caire González-Jauregui JM et al (2011) Intravitreal bevacizumab associated with grid laser photocoagulation in macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion. Eur J Ophthalmol 21:434–439. https://doi.org/10.5301/EJO.2010.6101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Yang C-S, Liu J-H, Chung Y-C et al (2015) Combination therapy with intravitreal bevacizumab and macular grid and scatter laser photocoagulation in patients with macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 31:179–185. https://doi.org/10.1089/jop.2014.0069

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Campochiaro PA, Aiello LP, Rosenfeld PJ (2016) Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents in the treatment of retinal disease: from bench to bedside. Ophthalmology 123:S78–S88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.04.056

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Farese E, Cennamo G, Velotti N et al (2014) Intravitreal bevacizumab combined with grid photocoagulation in recurrent macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion. Eur J Ophthalmol 24:761–770. https://doi.org/10.5301/ejo.5000448

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Pielen A, Mirshahi A, Feltgen N et al (2015) Ranibizumab for branch retinal vein occlusion associated macular edema study (RABAMES): six-month results of a prospective randomized clinical trial. Acta Ophthalmol 93:e29–e37. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.12488

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Campochiaro PA, Hafiz G, Mir TA et al (2015) Scatter photocoagulation does not reduce macular edema or treatment burden in patients with retinal vein occlusion: the RELATE trial. Ophthalmology 122:1426–1437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.04.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tadayoni R, Waldstein SM, Boscia F et al (2017) Sustained benefits of ranibizumab with or without laser in branch retinal vein occlusion: 24-month results of the BRIGHTER study. Ophthalmology 124:1778–1787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.06.027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Feucht N, Schönbach EM, Lanzl I et al (2013) Changes in the foveal microstructure after intravitreal bevacizumab application in patients with retinal vascular disease. Clin Ophthalmol 7:173–178. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S37544

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Kang J-W, Yoo R, Jo YH, Kim HC (2017) Correlation of microvascular structures on optical coherence tomography angiography with visual acuity in retinal vein occlusion. Retina (Philadelphia, Pa) 37:1700–1709. https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0000000000001403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Liu MM, Wolfson Y, Bressler SB et al (2014) Comparison of time- and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography in management of diabetic macular edema. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 55:1370–1377. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.13-13049

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, University Medical Center Goettingen, Robert-Koch-Str 40, 37075, Goettingen, Germany

    Josep Callizo, Nina Antonia Striebe, Sebastian Bemme, Nicolas Feltgen, Hans Hoerauf & Thomas Bertelmann

  2. Augen Praxis Klinik Esslingen, Adler-Str6, 73728, Esslingen, Germany

    Abed Atili

Authors
  1. Josep Callizo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abed Atili
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nina Antonia Striebe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sebastian Bemme
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nicolas Feltgen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hans Hoerauf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Thomas Bertelmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Josep Callizo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare 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 and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

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

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Callizo, J., Atili, A., Striebe, N.A. et al. Bevacizumab versus bevacizumab and macular grid photocoagulation for macular edema in eyes with non-ischemic branch retinal vein occlusion: results from a prospective randomized study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 257, 913–920 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-018-04223-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-018-04223-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation