May 2006
Volume 47, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2006
Interventions for Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion. An Evidence–Based Systematic Review
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • R. McIntosh
    Retinal Vascular Imaging Centre (RetVIC), Centre for Eye Research Australia, East Melbourne, Australia
  • Q. Mohamed
    Retinal Vascular Imaging Centre (RetVIC), Centre for Eye Research Australia, East Melbourne, Australia
  • S.M. Saw
    Singapore Eye Research Institute, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
  • T.Y. Wong
    Retinal Vascular Imaging Centre (RetVIC), Centre for Eye Research Australia, East Melbourne, Australia
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  R. McIntosh, None; Q. Mohamed, None; S.M. Saw, None; T.Y. Wong, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2006, Vol.47, 922. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      R. McIntosh, Q. Mohamed, S.M. Saw, T.Y. Wong; Interventions for Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion. An Evidence–Based Systematic Review . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2006;47(13):922.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : Branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) is the second most common retinal vascular disease after diabetic retinopathy. Although many new treatments have been advocated, the evidence justifying their use remains unclear. We evaluated the evidence for interventions to treat BRVO.

Methods: : We conducted a systematic review of all English and non–English language articles on interventions to treat BRVO. Abstracts were retrieved using a keyword search of MEDLINE (1966 – July 2005), EMBASE (1966 onwards), Cochrane Collaborations, NIH Clinical Trials Database, and ARVO (2003–2005). This was supplemented by hand searching the reference lists of selected major review articles. Two investigators independently identified and grouped any randomized clinical studies on interventions in BRVO before collaboration and further analysis. Translation was obtained for all non–English literature.

Results: : Out of 4133 citations retrieved, 15 randomized clinical studies comparing intervention with a control group or standard care were identified. An additional 10 randomised uncontrolled clinical studies, 2 comparative, controlled but non–randomized clinical studies and 3 prospective controlled trials where the method of treatment assignment was unclear were also identified and analysed separately. Interventions included macular grid and scatter laser treatment, haemodilution, triamcinolone, pentoxifylline, azetazolamide, troxerutin, ticlodipine, and intravitreal dexamethasone implants. The majority of the randomized trials analysed lacked adequate power, were methodologically poor, or failed to report on long–term visual outcomes. Of particular note, there were no randomized controlled clinical trials on the use of intravitreal triamcinolone for BRVO.

Conclusions: : There is limited level 1 evidence for any interventions outside the macular grid and panretinal laser treatment regimen from the Branch Vein Occlusion Study (BVOS) study. There are several ongoing randomized controlled clinical trials on intravitreal triamcinolone, intravitreal dexamethasone impants and chorioretinal anastomosis, but until these results are available, the use of many of new treatments for BRVO are unsupported by current evidence.

Keywords: clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: treatment/prevention assessment/controlled clinical trials • retina • vascular cells 
×
×

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.

×