Search

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate retinal vein occlusion (RVO) as an independent marker of incident dementia. Methods: In a prospective nationwide cohort study, we identified 2 225 568 individuals through the Danish national health registers. Individuals older than 65 years, without unspecified retinal vascular occlusion or dementia were included from 1998 to 2020 and followed until 2022. We calculated the incidence rate (IR) and performed a Cox regression analysis with a hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for RVO (exposure) as a marker of all‐cause dementia adjusted for systemic comorbidity. Results: We identified 19 669 individuals with RVO who had a higher prevalence of systemic comorbidity at inclusion compared to those without RVO (n = 2 185 483). We performed a Cox regression analysis for age‐dependent exposure due to non‐proportional hazards in the pre‐planned analysis. Exposed individuals younger than 75 years had an increased risk of all‐cause dementia (adjusted HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.01–1.18), whereas individuals older than 75 years had a decreased risk of all‐cause dementia (adjusted HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86–0.98). Conclusion: Individuals with RVO had an age‐dependent risk of dementia, with a 9% increased risk in individuals with RVO younger than 75 years and an 8% decreased risk in individuals older than 75 years at the time of exposure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/aims Associations between retinal vein occlusion (RVO) and subsequent cardiovascular disease (CVD) or mortality have not been evaluated in a recent cohort, after novel therapeutic options have increased referrals for treatment of the condition. We aimed to evaluate overall and subtype-stratified risk of CVD and all-cause mortality following RVO and assess any alterations after the introduction of angiostatic therapy in Denmark in 2011. Methods This nationwide, registry-based cohort study from 1998 to 2018 evaluated 4 194 781 individuals. Hazard ratios (HRs) were reported for RVO as an overall measure and subclassified as branch and central RVO. Results Patients with RVO (n=15 665) were median 71.8 years old at the time of exposure and 50.7% were women. RVO associated with incident CVD (adjusted HR 1.13, 95%CI 1.09 to 1.17) but not mortality (adjusted HR 1.00, 95%CI 0.97 to 1.03). Almost similar risks of CVD were found for patients with branch and central RVO (adjusted HRs 1.14, 95%CI 1.03 to 1.25, and 1.12, 95%CI 1.00 to 1.25, respectively), but only patients with central RVO exhibited increased mortality (adjusted HR 1.12, 95%CI 1.04 to 1.21). Risk of CVD, especially non-ischaemic, was higher for patients diagnosed after 2011 (adjusted HRs 1.24, 95%CI 1.15 to 1.33 vs 1.06, 95%CI 1.01 to 1.12). Conclusion In a cohort of the Danish population aged 40 years or more, patients with RVO had a 13% increased risk of incident CVD compared with unexposed individuals. Risk of CVD was increased after 2011, when intravitreal angiostatic treatment was introduced and referral practices altered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We aimed to evaluate whether macular laser still has a role in the treatment of macular oedema (MO) caused by branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) and provide an overview of recent studies on commonly available treatment options. A literature search was last conducted in PubMed on 26 February 2019, limited to human randomized controlled trials published in English since 2008. Seventeen articles addressing 13 trials were included in this assessment. In trials evaluating intravitreal corticosteroid and macular laser, triamcinolone was non‐inferior to laser in regard to visual acuity (VA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) outcomes. Combination treatment of dexamethasone and laser resulted in better VA and lower CRT after 6 months. In trials evaluating vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors versus macular laser treatment, or sham and rescue laser, better VA and CRT of VEGF inhibition treatment was consistently reported. Results of combination treatment versus VEGF inhibition monotherapy were inconsistent, with four of six studies reporting comparable outcomes and injection burden. Study comparison was affected by considerable differences in study design and inadequate reporting of laser protocol and rescue laser. Studies evaluating angiostatic treatment as monotherapy largely report the use of rescue laser, indicating that some patients would benefit from supplemental laser treatment even in the era of intravitreal therapy. Thus, we suggest further studies on optimal design of combination therapy prioritizing longer follow‐up time to sufficiently evaluate the delayed effect of laser. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]