101. Safety and effectiveness of IV Thrombolysis in retinal artery occlusion: A multicenter retrospective cohort study.
- Author
-
Baumgartner P, Kook L, Altersberger VL, Gensicke H, Ardila-Jurado E, Kägi G, Salerno A, Michel P, Gopisingh KM, Nederkoorn PJ, Scheitz JF, Nolte CH, Heldner MR, Arnold M, Cordonnier C, Della Schiava L, Hametner C, Ringleb PA, Leker RR, Jubran H, Luft AR, Engelter ST, and Wegener S
- Subjects
- Humans, Retrospective Studies, Thrombolytic Therapy adverse effects, Treatment Outcome, Intracranial Hemorrhages etiology, Stroke drug therapy, Retinal Artery Occlusion drug therapy
- Abstract
Background: Retinal artery occlusion (RAO) may lead to irreversible blindness. For acute RAO, intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) can be considered as treatment. However, due to the rarity of RAO, data about IVT safety and effectiveness is limited., Methods: From the multicenter database ThRombolysis for Ischemic Stroke Patients (TRISP), we retrospectively analyzed visual acuity (VA) at baseline and within 3 months in IVT and non-IVT treated RAO patients. Primary outcome was difference of VA between baseline and follow up (∆VA). Secondary outcomes were rates of visual recovery (defined as improvement of VA ⩾ 0.3 logMAR), and safety (symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) according to ECASS II criteria, asymptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and major extracranial bleeding). Statistical analysis was performed using parametric tests and a linear regression model adjusted for age, sex and baseline VA., Results: We screened 200 patients with acute RAO and included 47 IVT and 34 non-IVT patients with complete information about recovery of vision. Visual Acuity at follow up significantly improved compared to baseline in IVT patients (∆VA 0.5 ± 0.8, p < 0.001) and non-IVT patients (∆VA 0.40 ± 1.1, p < 0.05). No significant differences in ∆VA and visual recovery rate were found between groups at follow up. Two asymptomatic ICH (4%) and one (2%) major extracranial bleeding (intraocular bleeding) occurred in the IVT group, while no bleeding events were reported in the non-IVT group., Conclusion: Our study provides real-life data from the largest cohort of IVT treated RAO patients published so far. While there is no evidence for superiority of IVT compared to conservative treatment, bleeding rates were low. A randomized controlled trial and standardized outcome assessments in RAO patients are justified to assess the net benefit of IVT in RAO., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: PB: Research funds by the Gottfried and Julia Bangerter-Rhyner Foundation and Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences and funding for travel and conference fees from BMS/Pfizer. SW: Research funds by the Swiss National Science Foundation, the UZH Clinical research priority program (CRPP) stroke, the Swiss Heart foundation, the Zurich Neuroscience Center (ZNZ), speaker honoraria from Springer, Teva Pharma and consultancy fees from Bayer and Novartis. STE has received funding for travel or speaker honoraria from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim and Daiichi-Sankyo. He has served on scientific advisory boards for Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS/Pfizer, and MindMaze and on the editorial board of Stroke. His institutions have received an educational grant from Pfizer, compensation from Stago for educational efforts and research support from Daiichi-Sankyo, the Science Funds [Wissenschaftsfonds] of the University Hospital Basel, the University Basel, from the “Wissenschaftsfonds Rehabilitation” of the University Department for Geriatric Medicine Felix Platter, the “Freiwillige Akademische Gesellschaft Basel,” the Swiss Heart Foundation, and the Swiss National Science Foundation. PR has received honoraria for advisory board participation from Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer and lecture fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Pfizer and Daiichi Sankyo. His institution has received a grant from Boehringer Ingelheim for the ECASS-4 Study. RRL received funding for speaker honoraria from Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Biogen and Iscehma View. He has served on scientific advisory boards for Novo-Nordisk and Bayer.
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF