AIM:To identify factors contributing to visual improvement after treatment of macular edema(ME)secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion(BRVO),and to assess the interaction between laser therapy and intravitreal rani...AIM:To identify factors contributing to visual improvement after treatment of macular edema(ME)secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion(BRVO),and to assess the interaction between laser therapy and intravitreal ranibizumab(IVR).METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who had been treated for BRVO-related ME at our hospital.Records were traceable for at least 12 mo,and evaluated factors included age,sex,medical history,smoking history,treatment methods,foveal hemorrhage,and change in visual acuity.Treatments included laser therapy,IVR,sub-Tenon’s capsule injection of triamcinolone(STTA),a combination,or no intervention.Multivariate logistic regression analysis and interaction terms were used to assess the clinical efficacy of the treatments,and odds ratios(OR)and 95%confidence intervals(CI)were calculated.RESULTS:Seventy-three patients(34 men,39 women;73 eyes)with a mean age of 69.4±12.1 y were included.Patients who underwent IVR monotherapy,laser monotherapy,and STTA+laser had significantly higher best corrected visual acuity at 12 mo compared to baseline(P<0.001,<0.001,and 0.019,respectively).Logistic regression analysis without interaction terms found that IVR was a significant visual acuity recovery factor(adjusted OR:3.89,95%CI:1.25-12.1,P=0.019).Adjusted OR using an interaction model by logistic regression was 16.6(95%CI:2.54-108.47,P=0.003)with IVR treatment,and 8.25(95%CI:1.34-50.57,P=0.023)with laser treatment.No interaction was observed(adjusted OR:0.07,95%CI:0.01-0.75,P=0.029).CONCLUSION:IVR contributes to improvements in visual acuity at 12 mo in ME secondary to BRVO.No interaction is observed between laser therapy and IVR treatments.展开更多
文摘AIM:To identify factors contributing to visual improvement after treatment of macular edema(ME)secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion(BRVO),and to assess the interaction between laser therapy and intravitreal ranibizumab(IVR).METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who had been treated for BRVO-related ME at our hospital.Records were traceable for at least 12 mo,and evaluated factors included age,sex,medical history,smoking history,treatment methods,foveal hemorrhage,and change in visual acuity.Treatments included laser therapy,IVR,sub-Tenon’s capsule injection of triamcinolone(STTA),a combination,or no intervention.Multivariate logistic regression analysis and interaction terms were used to assess the clinical efficacy of the treatments,and odds ratios(OR)and 95%confidence intervals(CI)were calculated.RESULTS:Seventy-three patients(34 men,39 women;73 eyes)with a mean age of 69.4±12.1 y were included.Patients who underwent IVR monotherapy,laser monotherapy,and STTA+laser had significantly higher best corrected visual acuity at 12 mo compared to baseline(P<0.001,<0.001,and 0.019,respectively).Logistic regression analysis without interaction terms found that IVR was a significant visual acuity recovery factor(adjusted OR:3.89,95%CI:1.25-12.1,P=0.019).Adjusted OR using an interaction model by logistic regression was 16.6(95%CI:2.54-108.47,P=0.003)with IVR treatment,and 8.25(95%CI:1.34-50.57,P=0.023)with laser treatment.No interaction was observed(adjusted OR:0.07,95%CI:0.01-0.75,P=0.029).CONCLUSION:IVR contributes to improvements in visual acuity at 12 mo in ME secondary to BRVO.No interaction is observed between laser therapy and IVR treatments.
