Zhao Leran, You Cong, Chen Han, Wang Jiangyi, Cao Junya, Qi Manli, Hou Shuping, Zheng Xin, Shao Lili, Liu Quanzhong
Department of Dermatology and Venereology, The General Hospital of Tianjin Medical University, No. 154 Anshan Road, Heping District, Tianjin, 300052, China.
Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2020 Dec;10(6):1273-1283. doi: 10.1007/s13555-020-00440-5. Epub 2020 Aug 31.
Dye pulsed light (DPL) was proven to be effective at treating erythematous and telangiectatic skin disorders. However, there are limited data on the efficacy of DPL treatment for erythematotelangiectatic rosacea (ETR), and researchers do not fully understand the factors that may affect the efficacy. Here, we performed a study to investigate the efficacy of DPL treatment for ETR and determine the factors affecting that efficacy.
Sixty-five patients with ETR underwent three treatment sessions with DPL at 4-week intervals and were followed up at 4 weeks after the last treatment session. Skin type, sex, age, lesion site, severity of erythema and telangiectasia, VISIA percentile ranking, clinical photographs and red area images were recorded at baseline. The post-treatment erythematous and telangiectatic scores and VISIA percentile rankings were recorded, and the effects of different personal and clinical factors on the efficacy were statistically analysed.
The erythema and telangiectasia scores and VISIA percentile rankings showed significant improvement after the DPL procedures (p < 0.01). With regard to erythema, treatment efficacy was not affected by any of the investigated variables, including pre-treatment erythema scores, skin type, pre-treatment VISIA percentile ranking, sex, age and lesion site (p > 0.05). With regard to telangiectasia, the treatment efficacy was greater for mild telangiectasia than for severe telangiectasia (odds ratio = 4.14, p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in treatment efficacy between the moderate and severe categories (odds ratio = 4.00, p > 0.05).
DPL is not the optimal procedure for treating severe telangiectasia in patients with ETR, whereas the efficacy of the treatment for erythema was not affected by the severity of the condition.
染料脉冲光（DPL）已被证明在治疗红斑和毛细血管扩张性皮肤病方面有效。然而，关于DPL治疗红斑毛细血管扩张性酒渣鼻（ETR）疗效的数据有限，研究人员也尚未完全了解可能影响疗效的因素。在此，我们开展了一项研究，以调查DPL治疗ETR的疗效，并确定影响该疗效的因素。
65例ETR患者接受了3次DPL治疗，每次治疗间隔4周，并在最后一次治疗后4周进行随访。在基线时记录皮肤类型、性别、年龄、病变部位、红斑和毛细血管扩张的严重程度、VISIA百分位数排名、临床照片和红色区域图像。记录治疗后的红斑和毛细血管扩张评分以及VISIA百分位数排名，并对不同个人和临床因素对疗效的影响进行统计学分析。
DPL治疗后，红斑和毛细血管扩张评分以及VISIA百分位数排名均有显著改善（p < 0.01）。关于红斑，治疗效果不受任何调查变量的影响，包括治疗前红斑评分、皮肤类型、治疗前VISIA百分位数排名、性别、年龄和病变部位（p > 0.05）。关于毛细血管扩张，轻度毛细血管扩张的治疗效果优于重度毛细血管扩张（优势比 = 4.14，p < 0.05）。中度和重度类别之间的治疗效果无显著差异（优势比 = 4.00，p > 0.05）。
DPL并非治疗ETR患者重度毛细血管扩张的最佳方法，而治疗红斑的效果不受病情严重程度的影响。
