Intravitreal bevacizumab (Avastin) treatment of XXXX in central @entity2994 : a short-term study.

@entity1 @entity32 @entity937 @entity1713 @entity2994 @entity1103 @entity2790 @entity1031 @entity3225 @entity2713
PURPOSE: To report the short term anatomic and visual acuity response after intravitreal injection of bevacizumab (Avastin, Genentech) in @entity1 with @entity1103 due to central @entity2994 (CRVO). METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective study of @entity1 with @entity1103 due to CRVO who were treated with at least one intravitreal injection of bevacizumab 1.25 mg in 0.05 mL. @entity1 underwent Snellen visual acuity testing, optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging, and ophthalmoscopic examination at baseline and follow-up visits. RESULTS: There were 16 eyes of 15 consecutive @entity1 with a mean age of 76.1 years (SD 9.8 years). Intravitreal @entity2713 had been previously administered to 9 @entity1 , but all of these @entity1 either had no improvement or had @entity2790 caused by the @entity2713 . The @entity1 received a mean of 2.8 injections of bevacizumab per eye. No adverse events were observed, including @entity3225 , clinically evident @entity32 , @entity2790 , @entity937 , @entity1713 , or @entity1031 events in any @entity1 . The mean central macular thickness at baseline was 887 microm and decreased to a mean of 372 microm at month 1 (P < 0.001). The mean baseline acuity was 20/600 (logMAR = 1.48) and the mean acuity at month 1 was 20/200 (logMAR = 1.05), a difference that was highly significant (P = 0.001). At last follow-up, a mean of 3 months after the first injection, the mean visual acuity was 20/138 (logMAR = 0.84), which was significantly better than baseline (P < 0.001). Visual acuity improvement, defined as a halving of the visual angle, was seen in 14 of the 16 eyes. CONCLUSION: Initial treatment results of @entity1 with @entity1103 secondary to CRVO did not reveal any short-term safety concerns. Intravitreal bevacizumab resulted in a significant decrease in @entity1103 and improvement in visual acuity. The number of @entity1 in this pilot study was limited and the follow-up is too short to make any specific treatment recommendations, but the favorable short-term results suggest further study is needed.
