Study (country) | Study design | Complication secondary to iCRVO | Follow-up period (months) | Treatment arm (% with ischemia in overall CRVO patient population)l | Comparator arm (% with ischemia in overall CRVO patient population)l | Age in years (treatment vs. comparator) | Proportion of females (treatment vs. comparator) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ANTI-VEGF TREATMENTS | |||||||
Korobelnik et al. 2014 [17] (multinational) | Prospective, randomized, double-masked, sham-controlled clinical trial | MEa | 13 | â–ª Intravitreal aflibercept injection | â–ª Sham injection | â–ª NAk | â–ª NAk |
o n = 7 (6.8 % non-perfused of 103) | o n = 7 (10.3 % non-perfused of 68) | ||||||
Brown et al. 2013 [19] (multinational) | Prospective, randomized, double-masked, sham-controlled clinical trial | MEa | 12 | â–ª Intravitreal aflibercept injection | â–ª Sham injection | â–ª NAk | â–ª NAk |
o n = 17 (14.9 % non-perfused of 114) | o n = 12 (16.4 % non-perfused of 73) | ||||||
Boyer et al. 2012 [18] (multinational) | Prospective, randomized, double-masked, sham-controlled clinical trial | MEb | 6 | â–ª Intravitreal VEGF Trap-Eye (aflibercept) | â–ª Sham injection | â–ª NAk | â–ª NAk |
o n = 17 (14.9 % non-perfused of 114) | o n = 12 (16.4 % non-perfused of 73) | ||||||
Wittstrom et al. 2012 [16] (Sweden) | Randomized, clinical pilot study | NVGc | 6 | â–ª Single intravitreal injection of bevacizumab combined with PRP | â–ª PRP | â–ª 78.4 (7.8) vs. 78.0 (8.7) | â–ª 80Â % vs. 44Â % |
o n = 9 (100 % ischemic) | o n = 9 (100 % ischemic) | ||||||
Campochiaro et al. 2008 [27] (USA) | Prospective, randomized, uncontrolled open-label, double-masked trial | MEd | 3 | â–ª Ranibizumab 0.3Â mg (3-monthly injections) | â–ª Ranibizumab 0.5Â mg (3-monthly injections) | â–ª 63 (17) vs. 68 (13) | â–ª NA |
o n = 10 (100 % ischemic) | o n = 10 (100 % ischemic) | ||||||
STEROID TREATMENTS | |||||||
Asano et al. 2007 [20](Japan) | Randomized controlled study | Ischemic CME or MEe | 4 (all eyes underwent laser treatment prior to study) | â–ª Sub-tenon triamcinolone injection | â–ª No sub-tenon triamcinolone injection | â–ª 64.0 (7.1) vs. 65.1 (6.4) | â–ª 47Â % vs. 47Â % |
o n = 15 (100 % ischemic) | o n = 15 (100 % ischemic) | ||||||
Ramezani et al. 2006 [21] (Iran) | Randomized, sham-controlled clinical trial | NV preventive effectf; 52Â % were ischemic | 4 | â–ª Intravitreal triamcinolone | â–ª Sham subconjunctival injection | â–ª NAk | â–ª NAk |
o n = 9 (69 % non-perfused of 13 eyes) | o n = 4 (29 % non-perfused of 14 eyes) | ||||||
Jonas et al. 2005 [26] (Germany) | Prospective, non-randomized, clinical interventional study | CMEc | Treatment: 10.1 (mean); comparator: 6.0 (mean) | â–ª Triamcinolone acetonide intravitreal injection (about 20Â mg) | â–ª No treatment (results were not given by ischemic status) | â–ª NAk | â–ª NAk |
o n = 4 (31 % ischemic eyes of 13 eyes) | o n = 5 (25 % ischemic eyes of 20 eyes) | ||||||
PROCEDURAL TREATMENTS | |||||||
Tabatabaii et al. 2008 [23] (Iran) | Interventional case series study | Not mentionedc | 3.6 | â–ª Pars plana vitrectomy with radial optic neurotomy | â–ª Pre-operation | â–ª 56 | â–ª 44Â % |
o n = 18 eyes of 16 patients (100 % ischemic) | |||||||
Parodi et al. 2007 [22] (Italy and USA) | Prospective, randomized clinical trial | Anterior-segment NVg | 12 | ▪ Conventional PRP (performed promptly when two clock hours of iris NV, any angle NV, or both were identified) | ▪ Arm 1—Selective PRP (performed only in selected cases showing progression of iris NV, angle NV, or both during weekly follow-up) | ▪ 69.4 (4.1) vs. 69.5 (5.6) [Arm 1] vs. 67.7 (4.9) [Arm 2] | ▪ 42 % vs. 30 % [Arm 1] vs. 39 % [Arm 2] |
o n = 19 eyes (100 % ischemic) | o n = 20 eyes (100 % ischemic) | ||||||
▪ Arm 2—Photodynamic therapy with verteporfin (directed at the iris NV and angle NV) | |||||||
o n = 18 eyes (100 % ischemic) | |||||||
Feltgen et al. 2007 [24] (Germany) | Prospective, non-randomized, interventional case series | Not mentionedh | 12 | â–ª Retinal endovascular lysis | â–ª Pre-operation | â–ª 67 | â–ª NA |
o n =13 (100Â % ischemic) | |||||||
Mirshahi et al. 2005 [25] (Iran) | Non-randomized controlled trial | Prevention of NVi | 6–18 (mean = 10) | ▪ Surgical induction of chorioretinal venous anastomosis | ▪ No surgery | ▪ NA | ▪ 60 % vs. 39 % |
o n = 10 (100 % ischemic) | o n = 18 (100 % ischemic) | ||||||
MISCELLANEOUS TREATMENTS | |||||||
Hayreh et al. 2011 [28] (USA) | Prospective study | Not mentionedj | Treatment: 22.8 (median); comparator: 34.8 (median) | â–ª Aspirin | â–ª No aspirin or anticoagulant | â–ª 70 (12) vs. 68 (16) | â–ª 42Â % vs. 53Â % |
o n = 38 (17 % ischemic of 227) | o n = 47 (15 % ischemic of 324) |