Intravitreal bevacizumab for treatment of central serous chorioretinopathy

• Published in: Journal of ophthalmic & vision research 2016-01, Vol.11 (1), p.61-65
• Main Authors: nlü, Cihan, Erdogan, Gurkan, Aydogan, Tugba, Sezgin Akcay, Betul, Kardes, Esra, Kiray, Gulunay, Bozkurt, Tahir
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Analysis; Bevacizumab; Dosage and administration; Eye diseases; Intraocular pressure; Intravitreal Bevacizumab (Avastin); Central Serous Chorioretinopathy; Macular Thickness; Observation; Original; Risk factors; Visual acuity
• ISSN: 2008-322X; 2008-2010; 2008-322X
• DOI: 10.4103/2008-322X.180700

Purpose: To compare the outcomes of treatment with intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) versus observation in central serous chorioretinopathy (CSCR). Methods: In a retrospective comparative study, records of 45 patients with CSCR were reviewed. Twenty-two patients received IVB (1.25 mg/0.05 ml) while 23 subjects were observed. All subjects underwent measurement of best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and intraocular pressure (IOP), dilated fundus examination and optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging at baseline and follow up visits. Outcome measures included central macular thickness (CMT) and BCVA in logarithm of minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) notations. Results: Mean age was 44.1 ± 9.3 (range: 24 to 64) years and mean follow-up period was 10.4 ± 11.2 (range: 3 to 43; median: 6) months. All patients demonstrated resolution of neurosensory detachment and improvement in visual acuity. At final visit, there was no significant difference in mean CMT between the IVB and observation groups (275 vs 284 μm, P> 0.05). Mean baseline logMAR visual acuity was 0.38 ± 0.24 in the IVB group which improved to 0.24 ± 0.31 at final follow-up (P = 0.011); mean baseline logMAR visual acuity was 0.42 ± 0.28 in the observation group and improved to 0.12 ± 0.18 (P = 0.001). Visual improvement was more marked in the observation group (0.30 vs 0.14 logMAR, P< 0.05) and mean final visual acuity was also significantly better (P = 0.05). Conclusion: There was no significant difference between IVB injection and observation in terms of anatomical outcomes of treatment for CSCR. In terms of visual outcomes, observation was superior to IVB injection.