Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Interventions for branch retinal vein occlusion: an evidence-based systematic review.

Ophthalmology 2007 May
TOPIC: To assess the evidence on interventions to improve visual acuity (VA) and to treat macular edema and/or neovascularization secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO).

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Branch retinal vein occlusion is the second most common retinal vascular disease.

METHODS/LITERATURE REVIEWED: English and non-English articles were retrieved using a keyword search of Medline (1966 onwards), Embase, the Cochrane Collaboration, the National Institute of Health Clinical Trials Database, and the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology Annual Meeting Abstract Database (2003-2005). This was supplemented by hand searching references of review articles. Two investigators independently identified all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with more than 3 months' follow-up.

RESULTS: From 4332 citations retrieved, 12 RCTs were identified. There were 5 RCTs on laser photocoagulation. Grid macular laser photocoagulation was effective in improving VA in 1 large multicenter RCT, the Branch Vein Occlusion Study (BVOS), but 2 smaller RCTs found no significant difference. The BVOS showed that scatter retinal laser photocoagulation was effective in preventing neovascularization and vitreous hemorrhage in patients with neovascularization, but a subsequent RCT found no significant effect. Randomized clinical trials evaluating intravitreal steroids (n = 2), hemodilution (n = 3), ticlopidine (n = 1), and troxerutin (n = 1) showed limited or no benefit.

CONCLUSIONS: There is limited level I evidence for any interventions for BRVO. The BVOS showed that macular grid laser photocoagulation is an effective treatment for macular edema and improves vision in eyes with VA of 20/40 to 20/200, and that scatter laser photocoagulation can effectively treat neovascularization. The effectiveness of many new treatments is unsupported by current evidence.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app