September 2016
Volume 57, Issue 12
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2016
Outcomes of an intravitreal injection clinic
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Elizabeth Atchison
    Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States
  • Sophie J Bakri
    Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States
  • Ahmed F Omar
    Ophthalmology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Elizabeth Atchison, None; Sophie Bakri, Allergan (C), Genentech (C), Regeneron (C), San Bio (C), Valeant (C), Vindico (C); Ahmed Omar, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  An unrestricted grant from research to prevent blindness
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science September 2016, Vol.57, 3346. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Elizabeth Atchison, Sophie J Bakri, Ahmed F Omar; Outcomes of an intravitreal injection clinic. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2016;57(12):3346.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Purpose : To examine the safety outcomes of an intravitreal injection only clinic where patients needing chronic anti-VEGF therapy are treated with injections at a predetermined interval for a set number of injections without an accompanying clinic visit.

Methods : A retrospective chart review of all patients with exudative macular degeneration treated in an intravitreal injection clinic over a 6 year period. Data on the date, injected drug, laterality, whether it was part of a pre-assigned cycle and whether it was an injection-only visit or in conjunction with a clinic visit was recorded for each injection. For every patient with an interruption of an injection cycle the reason the cycle was discontinued was gathered from the chart. For each patient requiring an urgent (non-routinely scheduled) clinic visit, diagnoses made at such visits was recorded. All patients who changed laterality of treatment or who went from treating one eye to both eyes had their charts reviewed for new diagnosis of exudative AMD in the fellow eye.

Results : 556 patients received 4386 injections in the injection only clinic in a total of 1524 injection cycles. 106 cycles (74) were interrupted. The most common causes for interruption were: 32 for decreased vision in the injected eye, 23 for decreased vision in the fellow eye, 6 for flashing, 5 for pain, and 2 for irritation in the non-injected eye. Of patients who had an interruption of the cycle, 32 had a new diagnosis (most common: 6 abrasions, 6 exudative AMD in fellow eye). Of those with a diagnosis of exudative AMD in the fellow eye on an urgent visit, 3 had a sudden vision change within one week of being seen, 1 had 10 days of symptoms, 1 had 3 weeks of symptoms and one did not have a date of sudden change recorded. Four patients had been seen with a full clinic and OCT visit less than 1 month before. There were 6 instances of conversion to exudative AMD found in the other eye at a routine follow up visit following injection clinic. Five of these were 3 months after the last full exam with OCT and 1 was 5 months from the last exam with OCT.

Conclusions : An injection only clinic may provide a reasonable approach to streamline retina practices.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2016 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Seattle, Wash., May 1-5, 2016.


Reasons for interrupted cycles

Reasons for interrupted cycles


Diagnoses on urgent visits

Diagnoses on urgent visits


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.