Aflibercept 5+PRN with retinal laser photocoagulation is more effective than retinal laser photocoagulation alone and aflibercept 3+PRN with retinal laser photocoagulation in patients with high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema: a 12-month clinical trial.

Objective: This study aimed to investigate and compare the efficacy and safety of retinal laser photocoagulation (PRP) alone, PRP with aflibercept 3+PRN, and PRP with aflibercept 5+PRN in patients with both high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) and diabetic macular edema (DME). Methods: Overall, 170 patients with high-risk PDR and DME (170 eyes from 170 patients) who visited our ophthalmology clinic from December 2018 to December 2020 were divided into the PRP (n=58), aflibercept 5+PRN with PRP (n=53), and aflibercept 3+PRN with PRP (n= 59) groups. General information, such as age, sex, and eye category, was obtained. Moreover, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), baseline central macular foveal thickness (CFT), microaneurysm (MA), area of neovascularization (NV), area of hard exudate (HE), and cytokine levels in atrial fluid before and after treatment, were assessed. The χ2 test was used for comparison between groups for statistical data. Analysis of variance was used for the statistical description of measurement data, independent samples were analyzed using Student's t-test, and Student-Newman-Keuls test was used for group comparisons. Differences were considered statistically significant at P < 0.05. Results: After treatment, no significant improvement in the BCVA (logMAR) of patients in the PRP group was observed. The BCVA (log MAR) decreased from 0.72 ± 0.17 and 0.74 ± 0.17 to 0.50 ± 0.13 and 0.53 ± 0.17 in PRP with aflibercept 5+PRN and PRP with aflibercept 3+PRN groups, respectively, with a statistically significant difference compared to those in the PRP group (P<0.05 in all cases). However, no statistically significant difference was observed between the combined treatment groups (P>0.05). The CFT in the PRP-only group decreased slightly from 361.80 ± 36.70 µm to 353.86 ± 40.88 µm, with no statistically significant difference (P>0.05), whereas the CFT in the aflibercept 5+PRN with PRP and aflibercept 3+PRN with PRP groups decreased from 356.57 ± 37.57 µm and 358.17 ± 44.66 µm to 284.87 ± 31.52 µm and 303.19 ± 37.00 µm, respectively, with statistically significant differences before and after treatment (P<0.05 for both groups). Statistically significant differences were observed in CFT between the three groups after treatment (P<0.05 in all cases). The number of MA (pcs) in the PRP, aflibercept 5+PRN with PRP, and aflibercept 3+PRN with PRP groups decreased from 118.34 ± 27.96, 118.60 ± 33.34, and 116.59 ± 28.95 to 92.95 ± 29.04, 44.60 ± 20.73, and 54.26 ± 25.43, respectively. The two-way comparison of the three groups revealed statistically significant differences in MA (P<0.05 in all cases). In the three groups, NV decreased from 1.00 ± 0.21 mm², 1.01 ± 0.18 mm², and 0.98 ± 0.20 mm² before treatment to 0.49 ± 0.17 mm², 0.31 ± 0.16 mm², and 0.38 ± 0.14 mm², respectively, with statistically significant differences (P<0.05 in all cases). After 12 months of treatment, 13, 18, and 18 patients had reduced HE area in the PRP-only, aflibercept 5+PRN with PRP, and aflibercept 3+PRN with PRP groups, respectively, with statistically significant differences (P<0.05 in all cases). After 12 months of treatment, vascular endothelial growth factor, monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, and glial fibrilliary acidic protein levels (pg/mL) in the aqueous humor decreased in both combined treatment groups compared with that at baseline, with statistically significant differences; however, no significant difference was observed between the two combined treatment groups (P>0.05). Conclusion: Aflibercept 5+PRN combined with PRP was safe and effective in treating patients with high-risk PDR and DME, and was more effective than PRP-only and aflibercept 3+PRN with PRP in improving CFT and MA.

Retinal artery occlusion after facial filler injection in a patient with patent foramen ovale: a case report and literature review.

We describe a young woman with patent foramen ovale who developed multiple retinal artery occlusion in the right eye after injection of hyaluronic acid into the nasal root. She reported a gradual decline in visual acuity, with visual field defects that had developed in two stages. Multiple retinal artery occlusion was confirmed by slit-lamp examination, dilated fundus examination, optical coherence tomography, visual field examination, and fundus fluorescein angiography. A patent foramen ovale was detected by electrocardiography, transesophageal echocardiography, and transthoracic sonography. The patient was treated with intravenous dexamethasone and cobamamide, as well as extracorporeal counterpulsation therapy; this approach has not been described in previous literature regarding retinal artery occlusion. The patient's visual acuity improved from counting fingers at 30 cm to 20/133 within 3 days. Our report emphasizes the need for better understanding of vascular anatomy to minimize the risk of complications. Moreover, patients undergoing hyaluronic acid injection should receive information regarding the potential for mild and severe complications; relevant tests should be performed before surgery to exclude vulnerable patients. Finally, a nursing system is needed to facilitate the emergency recognition, triage, and management of retinal artery occlusion.

Retinal vein changes in patients with high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy treated with conbercept and panretinal photocoagulation co-therapy: a cohort study.

Objective: This study aimed to observe and compare retinal vein diameter changes and other essential indicators in patients with high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) treated with intravitreal injection of conbercept (IVC) combined with panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) versus PRP monotherapy. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on data from patients with high-risk PDR who received specific treatment and were followed up for 24 months. Among 82 patients with high-risk PDR, 50 eyes received PRP combined with IVC, whereas 32 eyes received PRP alone. During the 24-month follow-up period, changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central foveal thickness (CFT), retinal vein diameter, number of microaneurysms (MA), neovascularization (NV) area, hard exudate (HE) area, size of the foveal avascular zone (FAZ), superficial capillary plexus (SCP) blood flow density, and adverse effects were recorded and compared between the two groups at baseline and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after treatment. The relationship between each observation index and vein diameter was also analyzed. Results: During the 24-month follow up, significant improvements in the BCVA, CFT, retinal vein diameter, number of MAs, NV area, HE area, FAZ, and SCP were observed in the IVC+PRP group after treatment. The PRP group only showed significant reductions in NV and HE areas. The IVC+PRP group showed significant superiority over the PRP group in improving the vein diameter, number of MA, and HE area. However, no statistically significant difference in NV area reduction was found between the groups. Conclusion: In the treatment of high-risk PDR, IVC+PRP therapy has a significant advantage over PRP monotherapy. IVC+PRP therapy may reverse diabetes-induced retinal vein changes, restoring morphology and function.