The prevalence of vitreomacular adhesion in eyes with macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion selected for intravitreal injections

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the prevalence of vitreomacular adhesion (VMA) in consecutive naïve eyes diagnosed with macular oedema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO) and to longitudinally evaluate the incidence of vitreomacular interface changes over time and the influence on response to treatment. Design: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis and longitudinal cohort study conducted at two Italian tertiary referral centres. Methods: A total of 295 eyes, treated with intravitreal ranibizumab and/or dexamethasone for ME secondary to RVO between June 2008 and May 2018, were enrolled in the study. 280 fellow eyes met the inclusion criteria and were included as control group. The vitreomacular interface status was evaluated by spectral domain optical coherence tomography (OCT) and graded according to the OCT-based International Classification System developed by the International Vitreomacular Traction Study (IVTS) group. Results: At baseline, VMA was present in 130 (44.07%) RVO eyes and 142 (50.7%) control eyes (no statistically significant difference was found; p = 0.455). Mean follow-up (FU) was 35.98 months (min 6 – max 112). Throughout the FU, the incidence of spontaneous release of VMA (RVMA) in RVO eyes was significantly higher in comparison with that of the control group [59 (41.84%) RVO eyes versus 18 (12.33%) control eyes; p < 0.0001]. The number of injections in VMA+ eyes was significantly higher when compared with VMA− eyes. No significant difference was found between VMA+ and VMA− eyes regarding their mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at baseline and at each annual time point (p = 0.2). Differences in central macular thickness (CMT) were significant only at the baseline evaluation (p = 0.0303). Conclusions: Vitreomacular adhesion (VMA) was not found to be more prevalent in eyes with RVO compared to healthy fellow eyes, and RVO, in turn, did not result in a higher persistence of VMA over time. This suggests that VMA and RVO might be two independent retinal phenomena, with no mutual pathogenetic influence. Vitreomacular adhesion (VMA) might have an impact on the response to treatment, since it was found to result in a more intensive treatment regimen; however, it did not affect visual and anatomic outcomes. These results do not support vitrectomy or PVD induction in the prevention, nor the treatment, of RVO.