Twelve-Month Outcomes and Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) Biomarkers After Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implantation in Pseudophakic Eyes with Post-Vitrectomy Cystoid Macular Edema (CME)-Refractory to Medical Therapy.

Abstract

Background: In this study, we evaluated the incidence of cystoid macular edema (CME) after pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) for different retinal pathologies and assessed the role of optical coherence tomography (OCT) biomarkers in guiding treatment decisions in post-surgical CME patients who were refractory to medical therapy over a follow-up period of 12 months. Methods: Medical records of consecutive pseudophakic patients, who underwent PPV for different retinal pathologies, were retrospectively evaluated in this single-center, uncontrolled study. The incidence of post-PPV CME was assessed. Eyes with post-PPV CME in the first 2 months after surgery, with available clinical and OCT data for 12 months after surgery, were included in the evaluation. The mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA; logMAR), mean central macular thickness (CMT; μm) change, and response to different treatments [medical therapy and intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant] were evaluated 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after PPV. The impact of OCT biomarkers on the exposure to DEX implants was assessed. Adverse events, potentially related to the treatment, were investigated as well. Results: Of the 346 pseudophakic patients (352 eyes) who participated in this study, 54 (54 eyes) developed CME within the first 2 months after PPV (incidence of 15.3%). Among them, 48 patients were deemed eligible for the 12-month analysis. Preoperative mean BCVA (1.44 ± 0.99 logMAR) significantly improved to 0.32 ± 0.37 logMAR after 12 months (p < 0.001). The mean baseline CMT of 347 (±123.5) μm significantly decreased to 290 μm (±80.4; p = 0.003) by the end of the follow-up. Twenty-five eyes (52%) required one or more DEX implants for CME, due to being refractory to topical therapy. Significant correlations were found between the mean CMT values at various time points. Additionally, patients who required DEX implants at months 3 and 9 were more likely to present intraretinal fluid (IRF), disorganization of inner retinal layers (DRIL), disorganization of outer retinal layers (DROL), and hyper-reflective foci (HRF) at 1-month OCT. Five patients experienced a slight increase in intraocular pressure (IOP), which was successfully managed with topical medication. Conclusions: Topical therapy alone can be a valuable option for post-PPV CME in approximately 50% of patients. Significant visual recovery and macular thickness reduction at 12 months demonstrated that DEX implants can be a safe and effective second-line treatment for pseudophakic patients with post-PPV CME and who are refractory to medical therapy. Early post-surgical OCT biomarkers may indicate a more severe CME that might benefit from the steroid implant.