BMJ open ophthalmology · 2023
Prevalence and clinical implications of subretinal fluid in retinal diseases: a real-world cohort study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Park Jeff, Felfeli Tina, Kherani Imaan Z, Altomare Filiberto, Chow David R, Wong David T
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/AIMS: To characterise the baseline prevalence of subretinal fluid (SRF) and its effects on anatomical and visual acuity (VA) outcomes in diabetic macular oedema (DME) and retinal vein occlusion (RVO) following anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF).
METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of 122 DME and 54 RVO patients who were initiated on anti-VEGF therapy with real-world variable dosing. The DME and RVO cohorts were subclassified based on the presence of SRF at presentation. Snellen VA was measured and converted to logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (LogMAR). Changes in VA and central subfield thickness (CST) were assessed up to 24 months.
RESULTS: SRF was present in 22% and 41% in DME and RVO patients, respectively. In the DME subcohort, eyes with SRF showed an improvement of 0.166 logMAR (1.7 Snellen chart lines) at 12 months and 0.251 logMAR (2.6 Snellen chart lines) at 24 months, which were significantly greater compared with those of the non-SRF group. A significantly greater reduction in CST was noted in the SRF eyes compared with the non-SRF eyes at 3 months and 1 month in the DME and RVO subcohorts, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Baseline SRF is a good marker for a greater reduction in CST in both DME and RVO, but an improvement in VA associated with SRF may be only noted in DME.
METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of 122 DME and 54 RVO patients who were initiated on anti-VEGF therapy with real-world variable dosing. The DME and RVO cohorts were subclassified based on the presence of SRF at presentation. Snellen VA was measured and converted to logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (LogMAR). Changes in VA and central subfield thickness (CST) were assessed up to 24 months.
RESULTS: SRF was present in 22% and 41% in DME and RVO patients, respectively. In the DME subcohort, eyes with SRF showed an improvement of 0.166 logMAR (1.7 Snellen chart lines) at 12 months and 0.251 logMAR (2.6 Snellen chart lines) at 24 months, which were significantly greater compared with those of the non-SRF group. A significantly greater reduction in CST was noted in the SRF eyes compared with the non-SRF eyes at 3 months and 1 month in the DME and RVO subcohorts, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Baseline SRF is a good marker for a greater reduction in CST in both DME and RVO, but an improvement in VA associated with SRF may be only noted in DME.