Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 258 (1), 99-106

Comparison of Anatomical and Visual Outcomes Following Different Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Treatments in Subretinal Neovascular Membrane Secondary to Type 2 Proliferative Macular Telangiectasia

Affiliations

Comparison of Anatomical and Visual Outcomes Following Different Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Treatments in Subretinal Neovascular Membrane Secondary to Type 2 Proliferative Macular Telangiectasia

Buğra Karasu et al. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol.

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate central macular thickness (CMT), subfoveal choroidal thickness (SFCT), and visual outcomes following different intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatments in eyes with subretinal neovascular membrane (SRNVM) due to type 2 proliferative macular telangiectasia (Mac Tel 2).

Materials and methods: A total of 38 eyes of 34 patients who underwent intravitreal aflibercept (IVA), intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR), or intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) injections secondary to SRNVM due to type 2 proliferative MacTel were retrospectively reviewed. The CMT, central macular volume (CMV), best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and SFCT were evaluated at baseline and at 2 weeks, at 1 month, and at final visits following treatment. Spectral-domain optical coherence tomography and enhanced depth optical coherence tomography were used for the analysis.

Results: The mean age of the patients was 58.34 ± 12.48 years (range, 27-79 years). The mean follow-up time was 15.97 ± 6.79 months (range 5-32 months). The mean BCVA showed a statistically significant increase in each group (< 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in BCVA changes between groups in follow-up periods. There was a significant decrease in CMT following IVA (326.4 ± 168.03 μm to 236 ± 58.33 μm) and IVB (383.71 ± 156.79 μm to 343.85 ± 146.25 μm) (p < 0.001, p = 0.004, respectively) whereas no significant decrease in CMT was observed following IVR (374.57 ± 124.28 μm to 339.71 ± 126.10 μm) (p = 0.65) between baseline and final visit. The SFCT significantly decreased following both IVB and IVR treatments (p = 0.009, p = 0.03, respectively).

Conclusions: The IVA, IVR, and IVB were found to be effective with regards to anatomical and visual outcomes in proliferative Mac Tel type 2 patients related with SRNVM. Patients receiving both IVA and IVB needed less injections compared to patients who received IVR. Moreover, IVB and IVR lead to significant decrease in SFCT whereas IVA did not show significant effect on SFCT.

Keywords: Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatments; Subretinal neovascular membrane; Type 2 proliferative macular telangiectasia.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Ophthalmic Res. 2013;49(4):205-8 - PubMed

References

    1. Retina. 2012 Nov-Dec;32(10):2001-5 - PubMed

References

    1. Arch Ophthalmol. 2006 Apr;124(4):450-60 - PubMed

References

    1. Clin Interv Aging. 2009;4:63-5 - PubMed

References

    1. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005 Oct;33(5):542-4 - PubMed

References

    1. Ophthalmol Ther. 2019 Jun;8(2):155-175 - PubMed

References

    1. Ophthalmology. 2007 Sep;114(9):1736-42 - PubMed

References

    1. Trends Neurosci. 1996 Aug;19(8):307-12 - PubMed

References

    1. Retina. 2004 Jun;24(3):474-8 - PubMed

References

    1. Turk J Ophthalmol. 2017 Oct;47(5):279-284 - PubMed

References

    1. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2019 Jul;29(4):368-378 - PubMed

References

    1. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2008 Aug;246(8):1189-93 - PubMed

References

    1. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007 Aug;144(2):296-9 - PubMed

References

    1. Am J Ophthalmol. 2011 May;151(5):876-886.e1 - PubMed

References

    1. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging. 2007 Mar-Apr;38(2):164-6 - PubMed

References

    1. Arch Ophthalmol. 1982 May;100(5):769-80 - PubMed

References

    1. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003 Nov;121(11):1658-9 - PubMed

References

    1. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2010 Jul;54(4):320-4 - PubMed

References

    1. Case Rep Ophthalmol Med. 2014;2014:219792 - PubMed

References

    1. Eye (Lond). 2010 Sep;24(9):1492-7 - PubMed

References

    1. Eye (Lond). 2010 Oct;24(10):1535-41; quiz 1542 - PubMed

References

    1. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2006 Sep-Oct;16(5):711-7 - PubMed

References

    1. Br J Ophthalmol. 2010 May;94(5):600-5 - PubMed

References

    1. Br J Ophthalmol. 1978 Apr;62(4):243-50 - PubMed

References

    1. Case Rep Ophthalmol. 2012 Sep;3(3):298-303 - PubMed

References

    1. Clin Ophthalmol. 2013;7:1357-62 - PubMed

References

    1. Ophthalmology. 1993 Oct;100(10):1536-46 - PubMed

References

    1. Taiwan J Ophthalmol. 2015 Oct-Dec;5(4):149-155 - PubMed

References

    1. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2012 Nov;250(11):1697-9 - PubMed

References

    1. Neuroscience. 1993 Jul;55(1):291-301 - PubMed

References

    1. Surv Ophthalmol. 2013 Nov-Dec;58(6):536-59 - PubMed

References

    1. Retina. 2012 Feb;32 Suppl 1:450-60 - PubMed

References

    1. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2008 Jul-Aug;18(4):587-90 - PubMed

References

    1. Retina. 1999;19(4):332-5 - PubMed

References

    1. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003 Sep;121(9):1345-6 - PubMed

References

    1. Eye (Lond). 2011 Dec;25(12):1663-5; author reply 1665 - PubMed

References

    1. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2007 Dec;245(12):1825-9 - PubMed

References

    1. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008 Jul;92(7):941-5 - PubMed

References

    1. Retina. 2012 May;32(5):996-1006 - PubMed

References

    1. Case Rep Med. 2014;2014:786578 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback