June 2013
Volume 54, Issue 15
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2013
A comparison of anti-VGEF therapy and laser in preserving visual function in patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Marisol Estudillo
    Opthalmology-Retina, Valley Retina Institute,PA, McAllen, TX
  • Victor Gonzalez
    Opthalmology-Retina, Valley Retina Institute,PA, McAllen, TX
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Marisol Estudillo, None; Victor Gonzalez, Genetech (C), Regeneron (C), Pfizer (C), Valiant (C), Alimera (C)
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2013, Vol.54, 5760. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Marisol Estudillo, Victor Gonzalez, ; A comparison of anti-VGEF therapy and laser in preserving visual function in patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2013;54(15):5760.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the effect on visual acuity and visual field sensitivity in patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) treated with anti-VEGF monotheraphy versus combination of anti-VEGF induction and selective laser versus standard panretinal photocoagulation (PRP).

Methods: The patients were randomly assigned to three groups and treated and followed for one year. They were evaluated baseline, week 3, week 6, and every 6 weeks there after. Twenty eyes of 20 patients were included. Eight eyes in group A received 3 intravitreal pegaptanib (IVP) injections every 6 weeks (q6), then additional injections every 12 weeks. Eight eyes in Group B received 3 IVP q6 and after that selective laser treatment. Four eyes in group C received standard PRP only. Humphrey Visual Fields (30-2) were performed in all groups at baseline and at 1 year follow up visit. Changes in mean deviation (MD) on HVF over the time period were assessed. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was assessed at every visit.

Results: Group A) Baseline mean BCVA=77.25(20/32), MD= -9.63. One year visit mean BCVA=80.50(20/25), MD= -6.71. Group B) Baseline mean BCVA=78.56(20/32), MD= -6.10. One year visit mean BCVA=79.16(20/25), MD= -7.24. Group C) Baseline mean BCVA=66.16(20/50), MD=-10.08. One year visit mean BCVA=71.34(20/40), MD= -12.9.

Conclusions: The BCVA improved on average 3.25 letters at one year in group A, 0.6 letters in group B, and 5.18 letters in group C. The MD improved on average from baseline to one year after treatment in group A by 2.62 points. In group B it decreased by 1.14 points at one year, and group C got also worse at one year by 2.82 points. Although BCVA in group C improved by more letters than group A, baseline BCVA in group C was lower to begin with and the ceiling effect might be responsible for this finding.

Keywords: 688 retina • 499 diabetic retinopathy • 754 visual acuity  
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×