Ophthalmic Surgery, Lasers and Imaging Retina

The articles prior to January 2011 are part of the back file collection and are not available with a current paid subscription. To access the article, you may purchase it or purchase the complete back file collection here

Clinical Science 

Photodynamic Therapy With and Without Adjunctive Intravitreal Triamcinolone Acetonide: A Retrospective Comparative Study

Annie Chan, MD; Mark S. Blumenkranz, MD; Kathy H. C. Wu, MD; Gloria Wang, MD; Layla M. Parast, MS; Nilufer Berker, MD; Steven R. Stanislo, MD

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

To compare photodynamic therapy (PDT) with and without adjunctive intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA) in the treatment of choroidal neovascularization secondary to age-related macular degeneration.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Sixty-six eyes received PDT with IVTA and 73 eyes received PDT only. Outcome measures included changes in visual acuity and greatest linear dimension (GLD), the presence of angiographic leakage, the re-treatment rate, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Patients treated with PDT with IVTA had reduced mean GLD compared to patients treated with PDT only at all study time points (3 [P = .0049], 6 [P = .003], and 12 [P = .05] months). Forty-four percent of patients in the PDT with IVTA group and 22% of patients in the PDT only group achieved angiographic closure at 3 months (P = .027). There were no significant differences in the final visual acuity outcome or the re-treatment rate between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

PDT with IVTA therapy has a favorable outcome on GLD. There is a modest improvement in visual acuity with PDT with IVTA therapy, which diminishes over time.

[Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging 2009;40:561-569.]

AUTHORS

From the Department of Ophthalmology (AC, MSB, KHCW, GW, NB, SRS), Stanford University Medical Center; and the Department of Statistics (LMP), Stanford University, Stanford, California.

Accepted for publication November 14, 2008.

Presented in part at the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology annual meeting, April 30-May 4, 2006, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

The authors have no financial or proprietary interest in the materials presented herein.

Address correspondence to Steven R. Sanislo, MD, Department of Ophthalmology, Stanford University Medical Center, California VitreoRetinal Center, 1225 Crane Street, Menlo Park, CA 94025.

doi: 10.3928/15428877-20091030-05

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

To compare photodynamic therapy (PDT) with and without adjunctive intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA) in the treatment of choroidal neovascularization secondary to age-related macular degeneration.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Sixty-six eyes received PDT with IVTA and 73 eyes received PDT only. Outcome measures included changes in visual acuity and greatest linear dimension (GLD), the presence of angiographic leakage, the re-treatment rate, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Patients treated with PDT with IVTA had reduced mean GLD compared to patients treated with PDT only at all study time points (3 [P = .0049], 6 [P = .003], and 12 [P = .05] months). Forty-four percent of patients in the PDT with IVTA group and 22% of patients in the PDT only group achieved angiographic closure at 3 months (P = .027). There were no significant differences in the final visual acuity outcome or the re-treatment rate between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

PDT with IVTA therapy has a favorable outcome on GLD. There is a modest improvement in visual acuity with PDT with IVTA therapy, which diminishes over time.

[Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging 2009;40:561-569.]

AUTHORS

From the Department of Ophthalmology (AC, MSB, KHCW, GW, NB, SRS), Stanford University Medical Center; and the Department of Statistics (LMP), Stanford University, Stanford, California.

Accepted for publication November 14, 2008.

Presented in part at the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology annual meeting, April 30-May 4, 2006, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

The authors have no financial or proprietary interest in the materials presented herein.

Address correspondence to Steven R. Sanislo, MD, Department of Ophthalmology, Stanford University Medical Center, California VitreoRetinal Center, 1225 Crane Street, Menlo Park, CA 94025.

doi: 10.3928/15428877-20091030-05

10.3928/15428877-20091030-05

Sign up to receive

Journal E-contents