2009RetinaRequires access

PANRETINAL PHOTOCOAGULATION COMBINED WITH INTRAVITREAL BEVACIZUMAB IN HIGH-RISK PROLIFERATIVE DIABETIC RETINOPATHY

Won Bin Cho, Se Beum Oh, Jun Woong Moon, Hyung Chan Kim

Open publisher page 89 citations

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.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

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.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 89 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available 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.

Key concepts: Panretinal photocoagulation, Diabetic retinopathy, Bevacizumab, Medicine, Ophthalmology, Diabetes mellitus, Internal medicine, Endocrinology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
PANRETINAL PHOTOCOAGULATION COMBINED WITH INTRAVITREAL BEVACIZUMAB IN HIGH-RISK PROLIFERATIVE DIABETIC RETINOPATHY — Research Paper | ScholarLens