HJO  >> Vol. 6 No. 3 (September 2017)

    临床实际中应用抗VEGF药物治疗视网膜静脉阻塞性黄斑水肿的现状及疗效观察
    The Actual State of the Application of Anti-VEGF Drugs in the Treatment of Macular Edema of Retinal Vein Occlusion

  • 全文下载: PDF(573KB) HTML   XML   PP.75-81   DOI: 10.12677/HJO.2017.63013  
  • 下载量: 666  浏览量: 1,662   国家自然科学基金支持

作者:  

仇长宇,石圆圆,夏丽萍,高付林,宫玉波,赵宏伟,赵 军,许倩倩,伍春荣,罗 灵:解放军第306医院眼科,北京;
潘朝阳:解放军装备发展部疾控中心,北京

关键词:
视网膜静脉阻塞黄斑水肿玻璃体腔内注射抗新生血管治疗临床实际Retinal Vein Occlusion Macula Edema Intra-Vitreal Injection Anti-VEGF Actual State of Treatment

摘要:

目的:分析临床实际中玻璃体腔注射抗新生血管生成因子类药物治疗视网膜静脉阻塞性黄斑水肿的实际状况,并进一步分析其可能原因,以便为临床治疗决策提供进一步的指导。方法:回顾性非随机临床病例研究,共收集研究期间,在我院所有行玻璃体腔注射抗血管内皮生长因子(anti-vascular endothelial growth factor, anti-VEGF)类药物治疗的视网膜静脉阻塞(retinal vein occlusion, RVO)患者61例(62只眼) (去除失访5人)纳入研究,记录患者的年龄、性别、全身病史,注射药物的种类,注射的次数,以及视力情况、黄斑中心凹的厚度改变等;以分析临床治疗中的实际情况。结果:共有男性30例(31只眼)、女性31例(31只眼)纳入研究,平均年龄(58.75 ± 19.30)岁,其中BRVO50例(50只眼),CRVO11例(12只眼);合并有糖尿病等全身疾病的患者比例达56.7%;从患病到就诊的平均时间从6天到2年不等;雷珠单抗注射液与康柏西普注射液的使用频次比为3比1;玻璃体腔注射一次的占45.9%,注射2次及3次的分别占18%及23%,而注射3次以上的为13.1%;黄斑中心凹的平均厚度由治疗前的477.35 ± 202.21微米,降低到随访结束时的259.24 ± 99.52微米,注射治疗后黄斑中心凹的厚度平均减少了218.12微米,差异具有统计学意义。视力由治疗前的平均4.23 ± 0.52提高到随访结束时的平均4.60 ± 0.43,平均提高3行,差异具有统计学意义。除2例在研究期间发生心梗、脑梗外,无新发的眼部及其他全身的并发症。终止治疗原因中,53%由于临床治愈,25%因经济原因放弃治疗,其他原因包括全身心脑血管病发作,高龄等。结论:视网膜静脉阻塞是常见 的眼底疾病,分支静脉阻塞比中央静脉阻塞发病率更高,合并全身疾病的比例高;抗VEGF类药物对视网膜静脉阻塞性黄斑水肿的治疗是有效的,注射治疗后黄斑中心凹的厚度平均减少了218.12微米,视力平均提高3行;注射治疗方案不一,非病情原因影响治疗的最主要原因是经济原因。

Objective: To study the actual state of anti-VEGF drugs in the treatment of macular edema of retinal vein occlusion. Further analyses were also made to provide further guidance for clinical decision. Methods: This is a retrospective nonrandomized clinical case study. A total collection of 62 eyes of 61 patients with macula edema of retinal vein occlusion had been involved in the study (5 patients were excluded to losing the follow-up). The age, the gender, the general disease history, the intra-vitreal injection times and the classes of anti-VEGF drugs were observed. The best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and the thickness of macular fovea were also observed. Results: A total of 30 males (31 eyes) and 31 females (31 eyes) were included in the study, with an average age (58.75 ± 19.30), of which BRVO50 (50 eyes), CRVO11 (12 eyes); the proportion of patients with systemic diseases such as diabetes was 56.7%. The average time from illness to visit ranged from 6 days to 2 years; and the frequency of using Ranibizumab is three times to that of using Conpercept. The patients with only one intra-vitreal injection were occupied 45.9 percent. Those with two or three injections were occupied 18 and 23 percent. And those with more than three times injections were occupied 13.1 percent. The average of the BCVA was 4.23 ± 0.52 before the treatment, and it was 4.60 ± 0.43 at the end of the follow-up. All patients gained increased BCVA by three lines through operation. There are statistical differences between the BCVA of postoperation and preoperation. The average thickness of the macular fovea was reduced from 477.35 ± 202.21 micrometers to 259.24 ± 99.52 micrometers. And the thickness of macular fovea was decreased by 218.12 micrometer through operation averagely. And there are statistical differences between the thickness of macular fovea of postoperation and preoperation also. In addition to 2 cases of myo-cardial infarction and cerebral infarction during the study, there were no new ophthalmic and other systemic complications. The reason for the termination of the treatment is 53 percent due to clinical recover, 25 percent for economic reasons, and other causes including the onset of cardiovascular disease, and the eldest age, etc. Conclusion: Retinal vein occlusion is a common fundus disease, with a higher incidence of branch vein occlusion than central vein occlusion and a high proportion of systemic diseases. The application of intra-vitreal anti-VEGF injection for the treatment of macula edema of retinal vein occlusion was effective. All patients gained increased BCVA by three lines through operation. And the thickness of macular fovea was decreased by 218.12 micrometer through operation averagely. The treatment protocols were not all the same. The main reason for the unwished termination of treatment was economy.

文章引用:
仇长宇, 石圆圆, 夏丽萍, 高付林, 宫玉波, 赵宏伟, 潘朝阳, 赵军, 许倩倩, 伍春荣, 罗灵. 临床实际中应用抗VEGF药物治疗视网膜静脉阻塞性黄斑水肿的现状及疗效观察[J]. 眼科学, 2017, 6(3): 75-81. https://doi.org/10.12677/HJO.2017.63013

参考文献

[1] 陆秉文, 吴星伟. 视网膜静脉阻塞继发黄斑水肿的治疗进展[J]. 中华眼底病杂志, 2013, 29(6): 640-644.
[2] 张志纯, 汪浩. 抗血管内皮生长因子治疗视网膜静脉阻塞继发黄斑水肿的研究进展[J]. 国际眼科纵览, 2016, 40(5): 289-294.
[3] Ho, M., Liu, D.T., Lam, D.S., et al. (2016) Retinal Vein Occlusions, from Basics to the Latest Treatment. Retina, 36, 432-448.
https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0000000000000843
[4] 韩克阳, 王淑雅, 焦芮. 视网膜静脉阻塞的发病机制及黄斑水肿的抗-VEGF治疗[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2017, 31(1): 123-126.
[5] 蔺晓慧. 联合疗法治疗缺血型视网膜中央静脉阻塞的临床研究[J]. 医学综述, 2013, 19(2): 356-358.
[6] 史伟. 放射状视神经切开术治疗视网膜中央静脉阻塞的可行性及临床价值[J]. 医学综述, 2014, 20(20): 3795- 3796.
[7] 沈丽君, 吴素兰. 视网膜分支静脉阻塞以及继发黄斑水肿治疗现状困惑与思考[J]. 中华眼底病杂志, 2017, 33(2): 114-118.
[8] 夏松, 陈有信. 视网膜静脉阻塞继发黄斑水肿的抗VEGF药物治疗进展[J]. 眼科新进展, 2016, 36(11): 1093- 1096.
[9] 杨瑞芳, 杜红艳. 视网膜静脉阻塞治疗新进展[J]. 国际眼科杂志, 2016, 16(9): 1655-1660.
[10] 李小霞, 游志鹏. 视网膜分支静脉阻塞继发黄斑水肿的治疗进展[J]. 实用临床医学(江西): 2015, 16(3): 98-101.
[11] 白石. 不同方法治疗视网膜分支静脉阻塞继发黄斑水肿的疗效[J]. 国际眼科杂志, 2017, 17(4): 648-651.
[12] 许妮, 刘从威, 董方田, 等. 玻璃体腔注射地塞米松植入物与抗血管内皮生长因子药物治疗视网膜静脉阻塞并发黄斑水肿比较的Meta分析[J]. 协和医学杂志, 2016, 7(3): 168-175.
[13] 张鹏, 马景学. 抗VEGF类药物与曲安奈德玻璃体腔注射治疗视网膜中央静脉阻塞继发黄斑水肿的Meta分析[J]. 中华实验眼科杂志, 2016, 34(12): 1097-1101.
[14] 黄厚斌, 张卯年. 抗VEGF药物治疗视网膜静脉阻塞黄斑水肿的疗效及安全性评价[J]. 眼科新进展, 2013, 33(1): 1-4.
[15] Haller, J.A. (2013) Current Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Dosing Regimens: Benefits and Burden. Ophthalmology, 120, S3-S7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.01.057
[16] Li, E., Greenberg, P.B., Voruganti, I., et al. (2016) Cost and Selection of Ophthalmic Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Agents. Rhode Island Medical Journal, 99, 15-17.
[17] Thulliez, M., Angoulvant, D., Le Lez, M.L., et al. (2014) Cardiovascular Events and Bleeding Risk Asso-ciated with Intravitreal Antivascular Endothelial Growth Factor Monoclonal Antibodies: Systematic Review and Me-ta-Analysis. JAMA Ophthalmol, 132, 1317-1326.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.2333
[18] 吴木振. 雷珠单抗治疗视网膜静脉阻塞继发黄斑水肿的效果及安全性的系统评价[J]. 中国现代医生, 2016, 54(8): 72-74.
[19] 曾苗, 陈晓, 宋艳萍, 等. 视网膜中央静脉阻塞患眼光相干断层扫描血管成像与荧光素眼底血管造影检查结果对比分析[J]. 中华眼底病杂志, 2016, 32(4): 362-366.
[20] 刘隽, 杨晓春, 梅妍等. 康柏西普玻璃体腔注射联合黄斑格栅样激光光凝治疗非缺血性视网膜分支静脉阻塞继发黄斑水肿的疗效观察[J]. 中华眼底病杂志, 2017, 33(2): 119-123.
[21] 中华医学会眼科学分会眼底病学组. 我国视网膜病玻璃体腔注药术质量控制标准[J]. 中华眼科杂志, 2015, 51(12): 892-895.
[22] 李雁杰, 王丽娟, 李变花, 等. 玻璃体腔注射雷珠单抗治疗视网膜静脉阻塞性黄斑水肿的临床研究[J]. 中国药物与临床, 2015, 15(7): 1000-1001.
[23] 肖威娜, 苏颖. 雷珠单抗治疗视网膜静脉阻塞引起的黄斑水肿的3+PRN 治疗方案的临床疗效观察[J]. 黑龙江科学, 2015, 6(14): 14-15.
[24] 秦书艳, 沈磊, 力强, 等. 玻璃体注射康柏西普治疗视网膜静脉阻塞性黄斑水肿的临床观察[J]. 国际眼科杂志, 2016, 16(12): 2329-2331.
[25] 仇长宇, 伍春荣, 罗灵, 等. 玻璃体注药联合微创玻璃体切除治疗增殖性糖尿病视网膜病变的临床应用研究[J]. 解放军医药杂志, 2016, 28(9): 5-7.