Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Schumacher, Martin, MD
• Schmidt, Dieter, MD
• Jurklies, Bernhard, MD
• Gall, Christine, PhD
• Wanke, Isabel, MD
• Schmoor, Claudia, PhD
• Maier-Lenz, Herbert, PhD
• Solymosi, Laszlo, MD
• Brueckmann, Hartmut, MD
• Neubauer, Aljoscha S., MD
• Wolf, Armin, MD
• Feltgen, Nicolas, MD

Titel

Central Retinal Artery Occlusion: Local Intra-arterial Fibrinolysis versus Conservative Treatment, a Multicenter Randomized Trial

Ist Teil von

• Ophthalmology (Rochester, Minn.), 2010-07, Vol.117 (7), p.1367-1375.e1

Ort / Verlag

New York, NY: Elsevier Inc

Erscheinungsjahr

2010

Link zum Volltext

Quelle

MEDLINE

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Purpose The reported outcomes of central retinal artery occlusion (CRAO) with or without treatment vary considerably. Although local intra-arterial fibrinolysis (LIF) using recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) is a promising treatment, outcomes have not been compared in randomized trials. Design Prospective randomized multicenter clinical trial (the European Assessment Group for Lysis in the Eye Study) to compare treatment outcome after conservative standard treatment (CST) and LIF for acute nonarteritic CRAO. Participants Between 2002 and 2007, 9 centers in Austria and Germany recruited 84 patients (40 received CST, 44 received LIF), and data for 82 patients were analyzed. Methods Patients (age 18–75 years) with CRAO, symptoms for 20 hours or less, and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) <0.5 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) were randomized to the CST or LIF group. Main Outcome Measures The primary end point was BCVA after 1 month; the secondary end point was safety. Results The mean interval between first symptoms and therapy was 10.99±5.49 hours (CST) and 12.78±5.77 hours (LIF). The mean BCVA (logMAR) improved significantly in both groups (CST: −0.44 [standard deviation 0.55]; LIF: −0.45 [standard deviation 0.55]; both P < 0.0001) and did not differ between groups ( P =0.69). Clinically significant visual improvement (≥0.3 logMAR) was noted in 60.0% (CST) and 57.1% (LIF) of patients. Two patients in the CST group (4.3%) and 13 patients in the LIF group (37.1%) had adverse reactions. Because of apparently similar efficacy and the higher rate of adverse reactions in the LIF group, the study was stopped after the first interim analysis at the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring committee. Conclusions In light of these 2 therapies' similar outcomes and the higher rate of adverse reactions associated with LIF, we cannot recommend LIF for the management of acute CRAO. Financial Disclosure(s) The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.