摘要
目的比较视网膜分支静脉阻塞继发黄斑水肿(macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion,BRVO-ME)玻璃体注射雷珠单抗(intravitreal injection of ranibizumab,IVR)1+PRN与3+PRN方案的疗效及安全性。设计回顾性病例系列。研究对象2016年1月至2018年3月天津爱尔眼科医院接受IVR的70例BRVO-ME患者。方法患者分为两组,注射1次后按需治疗者为1+PRN组;每月1次连续注射3个月后按需治疗者为3+PRN组。观察两组治疗前后最佳矫正视力(BCVA)、中央视网膜厚度(central retinal thickness,CRT)、中央脉络膜厚度(central choroid thickness,CCT)变化及并发症情况。主要指标BCVA、CRT、CCT。结果观察12个月时,1+PRN组BCVA较基线提高了(0.42±0.42)(P<0.05),CRT较基线降低了(385.96±344.23)μm(P<0.05),CCT较基线降低了(13.03±54.46)μm(P>0.05)。3+PRN组BCVA较基线提高了(0.43±0.39)(P<0.05),CRT较基线降低了(524.74±339.20)μm(P<0.05),CCT较基线降低了(5.00±28.04)μm(P>0.05)。两组间BCVA、CRT、CCT变化无统计学差异(P均>0.05)。观察期内1+PRN组平均IVR注射(3.50±0.99)次,3+PRN组(4.25±0.73)次(P<0.05)。结论IVR 1+PRN及3+PRN两种方案对BRVO-ME短期疗效显著,安全性较好;两种治疗方案对于短期内提高BCVA、减轻ME疗效相似,但1+PRN组需要注射的次数低于3+PRN组。BRVO-ME患者两种方案治疗前后CCT无明显变化。
Objective To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of IVR regimens of 1+PRN and 3+PRN for macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion(BRVO-ME).Design Retrospective case series.Participants 70 cases of BRVO-ME received intravitreal injection of ranibizumab from January 2016 to March 2018 in Tianjin Aier Eye Hospital.Methods All patients were divided into 1+PRN group and 3+PRN group according to the treatment regimen.Patients receiving PRN after one injection were classified to 1+PRN group,and patients receiving PRN after three months of continuous injection were classified to 3+PRN group.The mean LogMAR BCVA,central retinal thickness(CRT)and central choroid thickness(CCT)of the two groups of patients as well as complications during the follow-up were observed.Main Outcome Measures BCVA,CRT,CCT.Results At the end point of observation(12 months),BCVA increased by 0.42±0.42(P<0.05),CRT decreased by(385.96±344.23)μm(P<0.05),CCT decreased by(13.03±54.46)μm(P>0.05)compared with the baseline in the 1+PRN group.BCVA increased by 0.43±0.39(P<0.05),CRT decreased by(524.74±339.20)μm(P<0.05),CCT decreased(5.00±28.04)μm(P>0.05)compared with the baseline in the 3+PRN group.There was no significant difference between the two groups in variation of BCVA,CRT and CCT(all P>0.05).During the observation period,the average IVR injection times of the 1+PRN group were(3.50±0.99)times,and the IVR times of the 3+PRN group were(4.25±0.73)times(P<0.05).Conclusions Both IVR treatment regimen of 1+PRN and 3+PRN have significant short-term efficacy and good safety for BRVO-ME.The 1+PRN group achieved similar visual outcomes,reducing CRT and reducing macular edema for BRVO-ME with fewer injections compared with the 3+PRN group.Both treatments had no significant effect on the CCT of BRVO-ME patients before and after treatment.
作者
周瑞
陈娟
林思勇
Zhou Rui;Chen Juan;Lin Siyong(Aier School of Ophthalmology,Central South University,Tianjin Aier Eye Hospital,Tianjin,300020,China)
出处
《眼科》
CAS
2020年第1期63-67,共5页
Ophthalmology in China