1 / 30

Hemi Central Retinal Vein Occlusion

Hemi Central Retinal Vein Occlusion. Grand Rounds March 11, 2005 John Nicolau, M.D. Leo Dominguez, M.D. CRVO/BRVO Findings. Most common retinal vascular problem second to Diabetic Retinopathy Dilated and tortuous veins in all 4 quadrants ONH Edema

kelsey-long
Download Presentation

Hemi Central Retinal Vein Occlusion

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Hemi Central Retinal Vein Occlusion Grand Rounds March 11, 2005 John Nicolau, M.D. Leo Dominguez, M.D.

  2. CRVO/BRVO Findings • Most common retinal vascular problem second to Diabetic Retinopathy • Dilated and tortuous veins in all 4 quadrants • ONH Edema • Diffuse retinal hemorrhages at all levels and possibly cotton-wool spots • Largely divided into ischemic vs. nonischemic by Fluorescein Angiography • BRVO Similar but segmental distribution of findings – morbidity related to area of blockage

  3. Clinical Presentation • Abrupt decrease in vision/Resolution? • TVOs • Redness and Photophobia • Pain – usually advanced with NVI, NVG and increased IOP • Classic clinical picture on dilated examination

  4. CRVO

  5. BRVO

  6. Pathophysiology • CRVO • Thrombosis at level of lamina cribosa possibly 2’/2 vessel narrowing and turbulent flow – relation to increased IOP? • Occlusion of arterial and venous components producing differing clinical pictures • BRVO • Compression of vein by artery sharing common adventitial sheath causing turbulence and thrombosis • Location of occlusion affecting clinical appearance

  7. Risk Factors • CRVO • Systemic Hypertension • Cardiovascular Disease • Diabetes Mellitus • POAG • BRVO • Systemic Hypertension • Cardiovascular Disease • Glaucoma • Increased Body Mass Index at 20 yrs old • NOT Diabetes Mellitus • Hypercoaguable States

  8. Causes of Vision Loss • CRVO/BRVO • Macular Edema • Macular Hemorrhage with RPE damage • Macular Nonperfusion • Neovascular Glaucoma (CRVO) • Retinal Neovascularization and complications (BRVO) • ERM • Macular Hole • RD • Subretinal Fibrosis

  9. Prognosis and Statistics • CRVO • Approximately 30% ischemic (10 DD on FA) • NVG 40% to 60% of these eyes vs 5% Nonischemic • <10% developed retinal neovascularization • CVOS – 83% of undetermined developed ischemia or NVI • BRVO • 1/3 to 1/2 recover VA of 20/40 or better w/o therapy • 50% Ischemic (5 DD) of which 40% develop neovascularization; 60% of these develop VH • NVI Rare; 1%

  10. Treatment of CRVO • Early studies with poor definition of ischemia, non randomization, lack of controls, small number of subjects, etc. • CVOS founded and attempted to answer two main questions: • 1. Whether PRP prevents NVI and NVG in ischemic eyes • 2. Whether grid treatment improves VA in eyes losing vision from macular edema

  11. Perfused and Indeterminate Groups • 34% of initially perfused eyes converted to nonperfused and thus became eligible for the study • Final VA depended on initial VA • 16% developed iris/angle neovascularization • Strongest risk factors were degree of nonperfusion and VA < 20/200 • 20/52 of indeterminate group developed neovascularization

  12. Macular Edema • Eyes with initially 20/50 VA or worse showed no difference in final VA after grid-pattern treatment compared to control eyes which received no treatment. Macular edema was however reduced in these eyes angiographically.

  13. Nonperfused Group • Set out to determine if prophylactic PRP would prevent neovascularization or it was more appropriate to wait for its development • Neovascularization developed less in treated eyes but not with statistical significance • Regression was prompt when treated in both controls and treated eyes

  14. Recommendations • There is no indication for PRP in ischemic or nonischemic eyes without neovascularization if patient available for follow up • Grid treatment not shown to improve VA in eyes with decreased VA due to macular edema • Progression towards ischemia greater in early months following CRVO with VA <20/200 best indicator • Monthly follow up for first 6 months with prompt PRP when any neovascularization observed • No systemic anticoaugulation

  15. BRVO Treatment • BVOS • Found that 63% of treated eyes with perfused macular edema, no foveal heme, and other minor criteria gained two or more lines of VA when compared to controls at 3 years. • PRP reduced VH in half (60% to 30%) when neovascularization present

  16. BRVO Recommendations • Wait 3 to 6 months before beginning laser therapy in an eye with VA < 20/40 and perfused macular edema • No treatment for macular nonperfusion • PRP at first sign of NVD, NVE, or NVI

  17. BRVO

  18. BRVO

  19. HCRVO • CRVO with two trunks behind lamina cribosa (20%) • Thought to be variant of CRVO but with complications and findings of both types of vein occlusions • Also divided into ischemic and nonischemic

  20. CRVO Anatomy

  21. Anatomy of HCRVO

  22. Fluorescein Angiography HCRVO

  23. HCRVO/CRVO Similarities • Hayreh and Hayreh found BRVO artery crosses over vein in 91% whereas in HCRVO only 1/3 showed this and >1/3 had no crossing • Collateral vessels in BRVO feed at crossing whereas in CRVO they form at disc or more posterior as found in HCRVO • In HCRVO about 1/3 showed increased IOP as did CRVO unlike BRVO where increased IOP not > general population • ONH edema seen in HCRVO/CRVO but not usually in BRVO • Lack of NVI/NVG in BRVO not found it HCRVO/CRVO

  24. Clinical Features

  25. CRVO Shunting

  26. BRVO Collaterals

  27. Further Evidence • Appiah, Clement Trempe found increased IOP when comparing HCRVO and CRVO but not BRVO and the above • Also found HTN and Hyperopia in BRVO but not CRVO or HCRVO • Hayreh, Zimmerman et al. compared HCRVO and CRVO and found increased prevalence of glaucoma and OHT when compared to general population

  28. Treatment Implications • HCRVO (ischemic) 13% NVI (Hayreh) thus NVI being > BRVO and < CRVO; • Nonischemic showed no neovascularization • NVD 29% and NVE 42% in ischemic HCRVO > CRVO and BRVO • Question arises as whether to pre-treat ischemic HCRVO with PRP and whether or not to treat macular edema in light of recommendations in BRVO but not CRVO

  29. HCRVO

  30. References • 1. BCSC. Retina and Vitreous. Section 12 pp 136-145., 2004. • 2. Spalton, David. Atlas of Clinical Ophthalmology; Retinal Vascular Disease I. pp 233 -243. 2004. • 3. Weinberg, David V., Venous Occlusive Diseases of the Retina. Principles and Practice of Ophthalmology. pp. 1887-1987. • 4. Clarkson, John G. Central Retinal Vein Occlusion. Retina. Vol 2. pp. 1368-1374. 2001. • 5. Finkelstein, Daniel and Fekrat, Sharon. Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion. Retina. Vol 2. pp. 1376-1381. 2001. • 6.Hayreh, S.S., Zimmerman, M. Bridget, Beri, Meena. Intraocular Pressure Abnormalities Associated with Central Retinal Vein Occlusion. Ophthalmology. Vol 111. Number 1. Jan 2004. 133-139 • 7. Appiah, Aaron, Trempe, Clement. Differences in Contributory Factors among HCRVO, CRVO, and BRVO. Ophthalmology. Vol 96 Number 3 March 1989. pp 364-366. • 8. Hayreh, S.S. and Hayreh M.S. HCRVO: Pathogenesis, Clinical Features, and Natural History. Archives of Ophthalmology. Vol 98. Sept 1980. pp 1600-1608. • 9. Alexander, J. Larry. Primary Care of the Posterior Segment. Retinal Vascular Disease. Pp 219-221. 1994.

More Related