Aims To investigate the outcome of intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) compared with laser photocoagulation in type I retinopathy of prematurity (ROP).
Methods Case records of 54 consecutive very low birth weight (VLBW) infants with type I ROP (posterior ROP, n=33; peripheral zone II, n=21) who were treated either with IVB (n=37) or laser photocoagulation (n=17) between 2011 and 2015 were retrospectively evaluated.
Results Patients with posterior ROP displayed significantly faster regression of active ROP within 12 days (range 9–15 days) if treated with IVB compared with laser photocoagulation, where active ROP regressed within 57 days (range 28–63 days) (p>0.001). No difference was observed in peripheral zone II.
Five of seven patients (12%) who developed a recurrence in both eyes after IVB required additional laser photocoagulation within a mean of 12.7 weeks (11.3–15.6 weeks) after the previous treatment. After laser photocoagulation one patient with posterior ROP developed macular dragging and another patient developed a temporary exudative retinal detachment in both eyes. 12 months after treatment the spherical equivalent was not statistically significant different between IVB and laser photocoagulation in posterior ROP patients. However, IVB lead to a significant lower spherical equivalent in infants with posterior ROP (+0.37 dioptres, range −0.5 to +1.88 dioptres) compared with peripheral zone II (+3.0 dioptres range +2.0 to +4.0 dioptres, p<0.001).
Conclusions IVB leads to faster regression of active ROP in infants with posterior ROP compared with laser photocoagulation. Spherical equivalent after 12 months was comparable in those treated with IVB and laser photocoagulation, but it was significantly lower in posterior ROP than in peripheral zone II.
- Child health (paediatrics)
- Optics and Refraction
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors All authors and co-authors contributed substantially to the preparation of the paper by examining the patents, collecting and reviewing the data, calculating the statistics, writing and discussing the results and critically reviewing the paper.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.