Duke University Eye Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Duke University Eye Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Ophthalmol Glaucoma. 2020 Jul-Aug;3(4):295-300. doi: 10.1016/j.ogla.2020.04.005. Epub 2020 Apr 22.
To determine the rates of primary and recurrent glaucoma tube shunt erosions in patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) receiving anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) intravitreal injections.
Retrospective case series.
Patients with AMD who underwent tube revision for erosion at the Duke Eye Center from January 1, 1999, to January 1, 2019, were identified. Patients with and without anti-VEGF injections were compared.
Patient demographics, ocular diagnoses, glaucoma tube shunt types and locations, and dates of glaucoma surgeries and anti-VEGF injections were collected. Statistical analyses were performed with P < 0.05 as significant.
Outcome measures included the number of tube erosions, time from anti-VEGF injection to tube erosion, and secondary complications after tube revisions.
A total of 150 patients with AMD with anti-VEGF (309 tubes) and 262 patients with AMD without anti-VEGF (459 tubes) were identified. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of tube erosions in patients with anti-VEGF (15 tubes, 4.8%) versus without anti-VEGF (12 tubes, 2.6%) (P = 0.10). However, patients receiving anti-VEGF had on average a greater number of tube erosion events (2.1±0.7 events) compared with patients without anti-VEGF (1.3±0.7, P < 0.01). Ten patients (91%) received concurrent anti-VEGF injections at the time of tube erosion, and the average duration of prior anti-VEGF therapy was approximately 2 years. Tube erosion was noted 46.5±60.7 days from the preceding anti-VEGF injection. Secondary complications after tube revision in the anti-VEGF group included 5 explanted tubes for recurrent erosions.
Our results suggest intravitreal anti-VEGF injections are linked to higher rates of recurrent glaucoma tube erosions in patients with AMD. The majority of patients received chronic and serial anti-VEGF injections. Thus, additional consideration should be given to glaucoma surgical planning in patients receiving anti-VEGF injections, especially in those with a primary tube erosion.
确定接受抗血管内皮生长因子(VEGF)玻璃体腔内注射的年龄相关性黄斑变性(AMD)患者原发性和复发性青光眼引流管植入物侵蚀的发生率。
回顾性病例系列研究。
从 1999 年 1 月 1 日至 2019 年 1 月 1 日,在杜克眼科中心接受引流管修复治疗的 AMD 患者。比较了有和没有接受抗 VEGF 注射的患者。
收集患者的人口统计学资料、眼部诊断、青光眼引流管类型和位置、青光眼手术和抗 VEGF 注射日期。以 P < 0.05 为差异有统计学意义。
观察指标包括引流管侵蚀的数量、抗 VEGF 注射至引流管侵蚀的时间以及引流管修复后的继发性并发症。
共纳入 150 例接受抗 VEGF(309 管)和 262 例未接受抗 VEGF(459 管)治疗的 AMD 患者。接受抗 VEGF 治疗的患者(15 管,4.8%)与未接受抗 VEGF 治疗的患者(12 管,2.6%)引流管侵蚀的数量无统计学差异(P = 0.10)。然而,接受抗 VEGF 治疗的患者平均发生引流管侵蚀事件的次数(2.1±0.7 次)多于未接受抗 VEGF 治疗的患者(1.3±0.7 次,P < 0.01)。10 例患者(91%)在引流管侵蚀时同时接受了抗 VEGF 注射,抗 VEGF 治疗的平均持续时间约为 2 年。抗 VEGF 注射后,引流管侵蚀的时间为 46.5±60.7 天。抗 VEGF 组引流管修复后的继发性并发症包括 5 例因复发性侵蚀而取出的引流管。
我们的结果表明,抗 VEGF 玻璃体腔内注射与 AMD 患者更高的复发性青光眼引流管侵蚀发生率有关。大多数患者接受了慢性和连续的抗 VEGF 注射。因此,在接受抗 VEGF 注射的患者中,特别是在初次引流管侵蚀的患者中,应更慎重地考虑青光眼手术计划。