Minton et al., 193717 | Retrospective case series | No comment | 43 | NA | CF or worse (98%) | Same or worse (94%) | NA |
Lorentzen, 19695 | Retrospective case series | No comment | 12 | NA | CF or worse (92%) | Same or worse (100%) | NA |
Karjalainen, 197118 | Retrospective case series | No comment | 91 | NA | NA | 58% blind, 21% good or reduced VA | NA |
Augsburger and Magargal, 198016 | Retrospective case series | Paracentasis, ocular massage, a 95% oxygen/5% carbon dioxide mixture, and oral acetazolamide | 34 | 2.5 h–2 wk | CF or worse (97%) | Improvement more than 3 lines in 35% (12/34) | Time to treatment within 48 h |
Duker et al., 199115 | Retrospective case series | Paracentasis, ocular massage, a 95% oxygen/5% carbon dioxide mixture, topical beta-blocker eye drop, and oral acetazolamide | 33 | NA | CF or worse (91%) | Improvement more than 3 lines in 9%, same or worse (91%) | NA |
Schmidt et al., 19926 | Retrospective case-control study | Intra-arterial rtPA or urokinase vs. paracentasis, ocular massage, and pentoxifylline | 14 vs. 41 | 4–60 h vs. within 12 h in 41% (17/41) | NA | Marked improvement in 28.6% (4/14) vs. VA improved from 20/700 to 20/50 in 1 patient, almost no change in the remaining patients | Time to treatment within 4 hours no continuous closure of macular arterioles |
Atebara et al., 19947 | Retrospective case-control study | Paracentasis and a 95% oxygen/5% carbon dioxide mixture vs. no treatment | 40 vs. 49 | 15 h vs. 7 d | CF or worse (85%) vs. CF or worse (90%) | Same or worse (90%) vs. same or worse (92.2%) | Presence of cilioretinal arteriolar sparing |
Weber et al., 199814 | Retrospective case-control study | Intra-arterial urokinase vs. paracentasis and oral acetazolamide | 17 vs. 15 | 4.2 h vs. 6 h | CF or worse (100%) vs. CF or worse (93%) | Slight or no improvement in 70% vs. slight or no improvement in 94% | No correlation between time to treatment |
Schmidt et al., 200213 | Retrospective case-control study | Intra-arterial rtPA or urokinase vs. paracentasis, ocular massage, pentoxifylline, hemodilution, oral acetazolamide, heparin, and aspirin | 62 vs. 116 | 9 h vs. 9 h | NA | Partial or no improvement in 83.9% vs. partial or no improvement in 94% | No correlation between time to treatment |
Incandela et al., 200212 | Prospective case-control study | Pentoxifylline vs. placebo | 5 vs. 5 | NA | NA | Central retinal blood flow increase was 550% at 4 wk after treatment vs. central retinal blood flow increase was 288% at 4 wk after treatment | NA |
Werner et al., 200411 | Prospective case-control study | Hemodilution and EECP vs. hemodilution | 10 vs. 10 | Within 120 h in all patients | CF or worse (80%) vs. CF or worse (80%) | Partial or no improvement in 90% vs. partial or no improvement in 90% significant increase in retinal blood flow was observed in EECP group at 3 h after treatment and no significant difference in both groups at 48 h later | NA |
Arnold et al., 200510 | Retrospective case-control study | Intra-arterial urokinase vs. paracentasis, oral acetazolamide, heparin, and aspirin | 37 vs. 19 | 4 h vs. 4 h | 0.006 vs. 0.008 | Regained VA of >0.6 in 22% (8/37) vs. regained VA of >0.6 in 0% (0/19) | Young age time to treatment within 4 h |
Schumacher et al., 20109 | Prospective case-control study | Intra-arterial rtPA vs. topical beta-blocker eye drop and intravenous acetazolamide | 42 vs. 40 | 12.8 h vs. 11.0 h | 2.18 (logMAR) vs. 2.11 (logMAR) | 1.74 (logMAR), clinically significant visual improvement (>0.3 logMAR) in 57.1% (24/42) vs. 1.67 (logMAR), clinically significant visual improvement (>0.3 logMAR) in 60% (24/40) | Time to treatment within 12 h |
Chen et al., 20118 | Prospective case-control study | Intravenous rtPA vs. placebo (intravenous saline) | 8 vs. 8 | 14.4 h vs. 7.3 h | 1.85 (logMAR) vs. 2.20 (logMAR) | Clinically significant visual improvement (>0.3 logMAR) in 25% (2/8) vs. clinically significant visual improvement (>0.3 logMAR) in 0% (0/8) | Time to treatment within 6 h |