First Author: S.Gudsoorkar UK
Back to previous
Compare local management Vs Royal College of Ophthalmology guidelines Were cardiovascular risk factors identified? Were basic investigations requested ?: BP/BM FBC/ESR/CRP/ Lipid profile Were appropriate specific tests requested if no known CVS risk factors? Compare local anti-VEGF treatment outcomes Vs Landmark studies Improvement in visual acuity % patients >15 letters gain Improvement in central subfield thickness (CSFT) Number injections needed at 24 & 52 weeks
Eye Unit Musgrove Park Hospital Taunton , UK
Macular clinic database ( AMD /DMO/RVO ) Patients on anti-VEGF treatment : May 2013 – July 2017 Inclusion criteria Patients with BRVO/HRVO/CRVO with CMO on Anti-VEGF treatment Previous Avastin® /Ozurdex® prior to commencing Lucentis/Eylea® Minimum of 4 months follow up Exclusion criteria Patients with other significant co-pathology e.g. advanced glaucoma, proliferative diabetic retinopathy, end stage ARMD, CRAO/BRAO etc Patients only treated with Ozurdex®
32% pts did not have baseline investigations. Mean final VA BRVO - 62.2 CRVO - 56.2 8-11 letters lesser Mean increase in VA: BRVO - 14.5 CRVO - 15.8 Similar to landmark studies % of pts > 15 letters ( 3 line ) gain BRVO – 55% CRVO – 54.2% Similar to landmark studies Average improvement in CSFT BRVO - 205 CRVO – 306 100µ lesser Number of Injections BRVO – 3.5/5.7 CRVO - 3.7/6.8 Needed lesser injections
Our retrospective audit showed that 1.32% pts did not have baseline investigations. 2. The mean final VA was 9.8 letters lesser . 3. The mean increase in VA was similar to landmark studies 4. Percentage of patients gaining more than 15 letters was similar to studies. 5. Reduction of CSFT was 100microns lesser . 6 .The average number of injections needed was lesser 1.2 (BRVO ) & 2.2 ( CRVO ) .