Subthreshold Micropulse Laser Versus Oral Spironolactone in Chronic Central Serous Chorioretinopathy: A Quasi-Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy and safety of subthreshold micropulse laser (SML) and spironolactone therapy for treating chronic central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC).

METHODS

This was a quasi-randomized controlled trial. Eligible patients were quasi-randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive SML or oral spironolactone and were assessed at 3 months after treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 84 patients (90 eyes) were randomly assigned to receive SML (n = 45) or spironolactone (n = 39) initially. At last follow-up, 59.5% of patients in the SML group had complete resolution of subretinal fluid (SRF) compared to 43.6% in spironolactone group (P = 0.362). The mean visual acuity did not significantly improve between the two groups (0.38 ± 0.44 vs. 0.43 ± 0.43 logMAR). The central retinal thickness was decreased from 335.06 ± 120.25 µm to 222.15 ± 94.90 µm in the SML group and from 308.02 ± 90.69 µm to 257.27 ± 102.28 µm in the spironolactone group. After treatment, subfoveal choroidal thickness, total choroidal area, and stromal and luminal choroidal area were significantly lower in the spironolactone group as compared to the SML group. During the entire visit, the recurrence rate of SRF was 9.1% in the SML group compared to 35.3% in the spironolactone group. Slight adverse events occurred more frequently in the spironolactone group (0% vs. 16%).

CONCLUSIONS

Both SML and oral spironolactone were effective and safe treatments to ameliorate retinal anatomical structures for chronic CSC. A lower recurrence rate and fewer adverse effects were observed in the SML group, and better choroidal structure recovery was seen in the spironolactone group.

TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE

The investigation of SML and oral spironolactone may inform evidence-based clinical decisions for chronic CSC patients.