Submacular Hemorrhage Rates Following Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Injections for Exudative Age-Related Macular Degeneration

Abstract

Purpose

To examine rates of submacular hemorrhage in patients undergoing anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections, comparing rates between specific anti-VEGF agents.

Design

Retrospective clinical cohort study.

Methods

All patients in the database from January 2015 to November 2023 with a diagnosis of neovascular age-related macular degeneration and accompanying submacular hemorrhage (SMH). SMH prevalence and associated anti-VEGF injection type were analyzed in 140,915 eyes (of which 9107 had SMH) in a nationwide aggregated electronic health care database using chi-square test of proportion. Visual acuity (VA) data was assessed using 2-sample independent t-tests. The primary outcome was rate of SMH per injection type. Secondary datapoints examined were time between SMH diagnosis and last anti-VEGF injection, number of injections before SMH, treatment interval at time of SMH, VA before and at 12 months after SMH, eyes undergoing pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) within 30 days of SMH, and VA before PPV and at 12 months after PPV.

Results

The last injection type in eyes with SMH was bevacizumab in 3430 (37.8%) eyes, brolucizumab-dbll in 46 (0.51%) eyes, aflibercept in 3221 (35.4%) eyes. Ranibizumab in 2246 (24.7%) eyes, and faricimab-svoa in 155 (1.7%) eyes. Rates of SMH were significantly higher (P ≤ .001) for last injection with bevacizumab compared to every other injection type. Rates of SMH were significantly lower (P = .0004) for last injection with faricimab-svoa or ranibizumab injections each had significantly shorter (mean and standard deviation 48.9 (27.9), P < .02; mean and standard deviation 59.6 (38.2), P = .003, respectively) mean time between SMH diagnosis and last injection than did patients undergoing any other injection. Mean VA before SMH and at 12 months after SMH did not significantly differ by injection type among all patients. The number of patients who underwent PPV were 52 (1.51%) for bevacizumab, 4 (8.7%) for brolucizumab-dbll, 58 (1.8%) for aflibercept, 41 (1.8%) for ranibizumab, and 3 (1.9%) for faricimab-svoa. Mean VA before SMH and at 12 months after SMH did not significantly differ by injection type in patients undergoing PPV.

Conclusions

Faricimab may be more protective than other anti-VEGF injections against SMH in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration.