June 2013
Volume 54, Issue 15
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2013
Treatment of Macular Edema (secondary to vein occlusion) with Dexamethasone Implant (Ozurdex)
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Nabil Jabbour
    West Virginia University Eye Institute, Morgantown, WV
    ForSight Foundation, Morgantown, WV
  • Frank Ruda
    West Virginia University Eye Institute, Morgantown, WV
  • Adel Wahba
    ForSight Foundation, Morgantown, WV
    National Eye Institute - Cairo, Cairo, Egypt
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Nabil Jabbour, None; Frank Ruda, None; Adel Wahba, None
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2013, Vol.54, 254. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Nabil Jabbour, Frank Ruda, Adel Wahba; Treatment of Macular Edema (secondary to vein occlusion) with Dexamethasone Implant (Ozurdex). Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2013;54(15):254.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Purpose: To assess the response & complications of treating macular edema (ME) secondary to vein occlusion (VO) with Ozurdex (IVO), especially in cases not responding to anti-VEGF treatment.

Methods: 40 eyes were treated with IVO & followed up for 6-24 months (an average of 12M) with additional treatment PRN. 7 (18%) were primary and 33 eyes (82%) were “rescue” (non-responders to Avastin and/or Lucentis).

Results: Overall, 94% showed full initial regression on OCT lasting an average of 4.2 months with 2 lines of improvement. 59% improved (14.2 letters), 10% worsened (6.7 letters) and 31% remained stable. 19% showed elevated intraocular pressure; all successfully treated with drops. The primary treatment group showed 100% regression with 13.3 letters of improvement; 86% improved and 14% remained stable. Only 20 (50%) required more than one treatment of IVO (average of 1.6 treatments per year). CRVO showed better anatomic & visual response than BRVO.

Conclusions: IVO seems to be an effective & safe treatment for VO, especially central. Many eyes that showed initial or latent “resistance” to anti-VEGF showed good response to IVO, making IVO a good “rescue” option for ME secondary to vein occlusion.

Keywords: 505 edema • 688 retina  

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.