Display options
Cite
Augustin AJ, Bopp S, Fechner M, et al. The impact of vitrectomy on outcomes achieved with 0.19 mg fluocinolone acetonide implant in patients with diabetic macular edema. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2021;11206721211014728doi: 10.1177/11206721211014728.
Augustin, A. J., Bopp, S., Fechner, M., Holz, F. G., Sandner, D., Winkgen, A. M., Khoramnia, R., Neuhann, T., Warscher, M., Spitzer, M. S., Sekundo, W., Seitz, B., Duncker, T., Ksinsik, C., & Höh, H. (2021). The impact of vitrectomy on outcomes achieved with 0.19 mg fluocinolone acetonide implant in patients with diabetic macular edema. European journal of ophthalmology, 11206721211014728. https://doi.org/10.1177/11206721211014728
Augustin, Albert J, et al. "The impact of vitrectomy on outcomes achieved with 0.19 mg fluocinolone acetonide implant in patients with diabetic macular edema." European journal of ophthalmology vol. (2021): 11206721211014728. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/11206721211014728
Augustin AJ, Bopp S, Fechner M, Holz FG, Sandner D, Winkgen AM, Khoramnia R, Neuhann T, Warscher M, Spitzer MS, Sekundo W, Seitz B, Duncker T, Ksinsik C, Höh H. The impact of vitrectomy on outcomes achieved with 0.19 mg fluocinolone acetonide implant in patients with diabetic macular edema. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2021 May 04;11206721211014728. doi: 10.1177/11206721211014728. Epub 2021 May 04. PMID: 33947233.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Eur J Ophthalmol. 2021 May 04;11206721211014728. doi: 10.1177/11206721211014728. Epub 2021 May 04.

The impact of vitrectomy on outcomes achieved with 0.19 mg fluocinolone acetonide implant in patients with diabetic macular edema.

European journal of ophthalmology

Albert J Augustin, Silvia Bopp, Martin Fechner, Frank G Holz, Dirk Sandner, Andrea-M Winkgen, Ramin Khoramnia, Thomas Neuhann, Markus Warscher, Martin S Spitzer, Walter Sekundo, Berthold Seitz, Tobias Duncker, Christian Ksinsik, Helmut Höh

Affiliations

  1. Augenklinik, Staedtisches Klinikum Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany.
  2. Augenklinik Universitätsallee, Bremen, Germany.
  3. Augenklinik Stralsund, Stralsund, Germany.
  4. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
  5. Universitäts-Augenklinik Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
  6. Augenzentrum Lüdenscheid, Lüdenscheid, Germany.
  7. Universitäts-Augenklinik Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
  8. MVZ Augenzentrum, München, Germany.
  9. Klinik für Augenheilkunde, Klinikum Frankfurt Höchst, Frankfurt, Germany.
  10. Universitäts-Augenklinik Hamburg Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
  11. Universitäts-Augenklinik, Marburg, Germany.
  12. Department of Ophthalmology, Saarland University Medical Center, Homburg/Saar, Germany.
  13. Makula Zentrum, Institut für Augenheilkunde Halle, Halle, Germany.
  14. Eye Clinic' Augenklinik am Glacis', Torgau, Germany.
  15. Augenklinik, Dietrich-Bonhoeffer-Klinikum, Neubrandenburg, Germany.

PMID: 33947233 DOI: 10.1177/11206721211014728

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of consensus on the use of intravitreal corticosteroid therapies in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) and prior vitrectomized eyes in clinical practice.

METHODS: Retro-IDEAL was a 3-year retrospective, multicenter study in patients with chronic DME (i.e. DME that persists or recurs despite treatment) treated with ILUVIEN

RESULTS: A total of 81 eyes (63 patients) were included of which 39 eyes had undergone prior vitrectomy (PV group) while 42 eyes had not undergone prior vitrectomy (NPV). Baseline characteristics were balanced; however, more patients had proliferative diabetic retinopathy in the PV group vs. the NPV group (21.62% vs 9.38%, respectively). Over 36 months, mean visual acuity (VA) increased in both groups with a tendency for more ETDRS letters being gained in the NPV group (+5.33) vs. the PV group (+2.42). By month 36, central retinal thickness was reduced to ⩽300 µm in two-thirds of the eyes in both groups and the mean change from baseline in intraocular pressure was similar in both groups (+0.50 mmHg -0.75 mmHg; NPV and PV group).

CONCLUSIONS: These long-term data suggest that the 0.2 μg/day FAc implant is effective in both vitrectomized and non-vitrectomized patients, with a manageable safety profile, and improved VA and reduced supplemental therapies for patients with a suboptimal response to first-line DME therapies. Clinicians may consider utilizing the FAc implant earlier in the DME disease process.

Keywords: Diabetic macular edema; ILUVIEN®; Retro-IDEAL; corticosteroid; visual acuity; vitrectomy

Publication Types