Search

Aims: To compare the outcomes of neovascular glaucoma (NVG) treated with and without intravitreal bevacizumab in a large case comparison study., Methods: The study is a retrospective, comparative, case series of 163 eyes of 151 patients with NVG, including 99 treated without and 64 treated with intravitreal bevacizumab. Medical and surgical treatments for NVG were assessed. The main outcome measures were visual acuity (VA) and intraocular pressure (IOP)., Results: At the time of NVG diagnosis, the median VA was count fingers (CF) in the non-bevacizumab group and 2/300 in the bevacizumab group. IOP (mean±SD) was 43.1±13.0 mm Hg in the non-bevacizumab group and 40.8±11.5 mm Hg in the bevacizumab group. IOP (mean±SD) decreased to 18.3±13.8 mm Hg in the non-bevacizumab group and 15.3±8.0 mm Hg in the bevacizumab group, and the median VA was CF in both treatment groups at a mean follow-up of 12 months. Panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) substantially reduced the need for glaucoma surgery (P<0.001) in bevacizumab treated NVG eyes., Conclusions: Although bevacizumab delayed the need for glaucoma surgery, PRP was the most important factor that reduced the need for surgery. Vision and IOP in eyes with NVG treated with bevacizumab showed no long-term differences when compared with eyes that were not treated with bevacizumab. Thus, intravitreal bevacizumab serves as an effective temporizing treatment, but is not a replacement for close monitoring and definitive treatment of NVG. PRP remains the treatment modality that affects the course of NVG in terms of decreasing the need for surgery to control IOP.