PANRETINAL PHOTOCOAGULATION COMBINED WITH INTRAVITREAL BEVACIZUMAB IN HIGH-RISK PROLIFERATIVE DIABETIC RETINOPATHY
Won Bin Cho, Se Beum Oh, Jun Woong Moon, Hyung Chan Kim
Abstract
Won Bin Cho, Se Beum Oh, Jun Woong Moon, Hyung Chan Kim
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravitreal bevacizumab as an adjunctive treatment to panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) for high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy with or without clinically significant macular edema (CSME). METHODS: In forty-one eyes with high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy, intravitreal bevacizumab (1.25 mg/0.05 mL) before PRP (Plus group) or PRP alone (PRP group) was performed. Primary outcome measures were changes in best-corrected visual acuity and central macular thickness (CMT). Secondary outcome measures were the proportion of visual loss >/=0.1 logMAR, increase in CMT >/=50 mum, and eyes with development of vitreous hemorrhage. RESULT: Best-corrected visual acuity was significantly worse at 3 months (P = 0.041) in the PRP group, whereas in the plus group, there was no significant change. Central macular thickness decreased significantly at 1 month and 3 months (P = 0.012, 0.008) in the Plus group, whereas in the PRP group, there was no significant change. In eyes with CSME, there was no significant change in best-corrected visual acuity in both groups. Central macular thickness decreased significantly at 1 month and 3 months (P = 0.003, 0.001) in the Plus group, whereas in the PRP group, there was no significant change. In eyes without CSME, best-corrected visual acuity was significantly worse at 1 month and 3 months (P = 0.047, 0.011) in the PRP group, whereas in the Plus group, there was no significant change. Central macular thickness was significantly worse at 1 month and 3 months (P = 0.004, 0.016) in the PRP group, whereas in the Plus group, there was no significant change. In eyes without CSME, the proportion of eyes with visual loss >/=0.1 logMAR at 1 month was significantly higher in the PRP group than in the Plus group (P = 0.020). The proportion of eyes with development of vitreous hemorrhage was significantly lower in the Plus group than in the PRP group (P = 0.023). CONCLUSION: Intravitreal bevacizumab before PRP can be an effective adjunctive treatment to PRP in the treatment of high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy, especially if there is not CSME.
OpenAlex reports 89 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravitreal bevacizumab as an adjunctive treatment to panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) for high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy with or without clinically significant macular edema (CSME). METHODS: In forty-one eyes with high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy, intravitreal bevacizumab (1.25 mg/0.05 mL) before PRP (Plus group) or PRP alone (PRP group) was performed. Primary outcome measures were changes in best-corrected visual acuity and central macular thickness (CMT). Secondary outcome measures were the proportion of visual loss >/=0.1 logMAR, increase in CMT >/=50 mum, and eyes with development of vitreous hemorrhage. RESULT: Best-corrected visual acuity was significantly worse at 3 months (P = 0.041) in the PRP group, whereas in the plus group, there was no significant change. Central macular thickness decreased significantly at 1 month and 3 months (P = 0.012, 0.008) in the Plus group, whereas in the PRP group, there was no significant change. In eyes with CSME, there was no significant change in best-corrected visual acuity in both groups. Central macular thickness decreased significantly at 1 month and 3 months (P = 0.003, 0.001) in the Plus group, whereas in the PRP group, there was no significant change. In eyes without CSME, best-corrected visual acuity was significantly worse at 1 month and 3 months (P = 0.047, 0.011) in the PRP group, whereas in the Plus group, there was no significant change. Central macular thickness was significantly worse at 1 month and 3 months (P = 0.004, 0.016) in the PRP group, whereas in the Plus group, there was no significant change. In eyes without CSME, the proportion of eyes with visual loss >/=0.1 logMAR at 1 month was significantly higher in the PRP group than in the Plus group (P = 0.020). The proportion of eyes with development of vitreous hemorrhage was significantly lower in the Plus group than in the PRP group (P = 0.023). CONCLUSION: Intravitreal bevacizumab before PRP can be an effective adjunctive treatment to PRP in the treatment of high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy, especially if there is not CSME.
Key concepts: Panretinal photocoagulation, Diabetic retinopathy, Bevacizumab, Medicine, Ophthalmology, Diabetes mellitus, Internal medicine, Endocrinology