Macular Degeneration: Gross JG

Anonymous00148, Brucker AJ, Qin H, Antoszyk AN, Beck RW, Bressler NM, Browning DJ, Elman MJ, Glassman AR, Gross JG, Kollman C, Wells JA. · No affiliation provided · Arch Ophthalmol. · Pubmed #19204228 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of single-sitting vs 4-sitting panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) on macular edema in subjects with severe nonproliferative or early proliferative diabetic retinopathy with relatively good visual acuity and no or mild center-involved macular edema. METHODS: Subjects were treated with 1 sitting or 4 sittings of PRP in a nonrandomized, prospective, multicentered clinical trial. Main Outcome Measure Central subfield thickness on optical coherence tomography (OCT). RESULTS: Central subfield thickness was slightly greater in the 1-sitting group (n = 84) than in the 4-sitting group (n = 71) at the 3-day (P = .01) and 4-week visits (P = .003). At the 34-week primary outcome visit, the slight differences had reversed, with the thickness being slightly greater in the 4-sitting group than in the 1-sitting group (P = .06). Visual acuity differences paralleled OCT differences. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that clinically meaningful differences are unlikely in OCT thickness or visual acuity following application of PRP in 1 sitting compared with 4 sittings in subjects in this cohort. More definitive results would require a large randomized trial. Application to Clinical Practice These results suggest PRP costs to some patients in terms of travel and lost productivity as well as to eye care providers could be reduced. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00687154.

Chan CK, Meyer CH, Gross JG, Abraham P, Nuthi AS, Kokame GT, Lin SG, Rauser ME, Kaiser PK. · Southern California Desert Retina Consultants, Palm Springs, CA 92263, USA. · Retina. · Pubmed #17558314 No free full text.

Abstract: PURPOSE: To study retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) tears after off-label intravitreal bevacizumab (Avastin; Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, CA) injection for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Eyes with a vascularized pigment epithelial detachment (PED) that developed an RPE tear were compared with eyes with a vascularized PED but without an RPE tear. METHODS: Nine retina specialists across the United States and in Europe participated in this retrospective case series. All eyes that received intravitreal bevacizumab injection for choroidal neovascularization (CNV) over 12 months (October 2005 to September 2006) were included. Eyes without all three confirmed tests (fluorescein angiography, fundus photography, and optical coherence tomography) were excluded from analysis. Statistical analyses were performed on multiple characteristics of eyes with a vascularized PED that did and did not develop an RPE tear. RESULTS: Among 2,785 intravitreal bevacizumab injections for 1,064 eyes, RPE tears were found in 22 eyes in 22 patients (2.2%). A vascularized PED was present in 21 of 22 eyes that developed an RPE tear (17.1% of PED eyes; 15, 100% occult CNV; 6, predominantly occult CNV). Mean interval from bevacizumab injections to RPE tears was 37.3 days. Mean follow-up time was 124.9 days. Mean subfoveal PED size was larger for eyes with tears than for those without tears (13.97 mm vs 9.9 mm, respectively; P = 0.01; odds ratio, 1.09). There was substantially smaller mean ratio of CNV size to PED size for eyes with tears than for those without tears (27.9% vs 67.6%, respectively; P = 0.005). Mean pre-bevacizumab injection best-corrected Snellen visual acuity was 20/162, and mean post-RPE tear best-corrected visual acuity was 20/160 (P = 0.48). CONCLUSION: Large PED size is a predictor for RPE tears, and a small ratio of CNV size to PED size (<50%) is more common in eyes with RPE tears. Vision may be preserved despite RPE tears.

Anonymous00153, Krzystolik MG, Strauber SF, Aiello LP, Beck RW, Berger BB, Bressler NM, Browning DJ, Chambers RB, Danis RP, Davis MD, Glassman AR, Gonzalez VH, Greenberg PB, Gross JG, Kim JE, Kollman C. · Jaeb Center for Health Research, 15310 Amberly Drive, Suite 350, Tampa, FL 33647, USA. · Ophthalmology. · Pubmed #17353052 links to  free full text

Abstract: PURPOSE: To evaluate optical coherence tomography (OCT) reproducibility in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN: Prospective 1-day observational study. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred twelve eyes of 107 patients with DME involving the macular center by clinical examination and OCT central subfield thickness of > or =225 microm. METHODS: Retinal thickness was measured with the OCT3 system, and scans were evaluated by a reading center. Reproducibility of retinal thickness measurements was assessed, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for a change in thickness were estimated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reproducibility of OCT-measured central subfield thickness. RESULTS: Reproducibility was better for central subfield thickness than for center point thickness (half-width of the 95% CI for absolute change, 38 microm vs. 50 microm, and for relative change, 11% vs. 17%, respectively; P<0.001). The median absolute difference between replicate measurements of the central subfield was 7 microm (2%). Half-widths of the 95% CI for a change in central subfield thickness were 22, 23, 33, and 56 microm for scans with central subfield thicknesses of <200, 200 to <250, 250 to <400, and > or =400 microm, respectively. When expressed as percentage differences between 2 measurements, half-widths of the 95% CI for a change in central subfield thickness were 10%, 10%, 10%, and 13% for scans with central subfield thicknesses of <200, 200 to <250, 250 to <400, and > or =400 microm, respectively. We were unable to identify an effect on reproducibility of central subfield measurements with respect to the presence of cystoid abnormalities, subretinal fluid, vitreomacular traction, or reduced visual acuity. Reproducibility was better when both scans had a standard deviation (SD) of the center point of <10.0% (half-width of the 95% CI for change, 33 microm vs. 56 microm; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Reproducibility is better for central subfield thickness measurements than for center point measurements, and variability is less with retinal thickness when expressed as a percent change than when expressed as an absolute change. A change in central subfield thickness exceeding 11% is likely to be real. Scans with an SD of the center point of > or =10.0% are less reproducible and should be viewed with caution when assessing the validity of an observed change in retinal thickness in patients with DME.