Continuous wave Nd:YAG laser photocoagulation in proliferative diabetic retinopathy

Different lasers and techniques for proliferative diabetic retinopathy

BACKGROUND

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a chronic progressive disease of the retinal microvasculature associated with prolonged hyperglycaemia. Proliferative DR (PDR) is a sight-threatening complication of DR and is characterised by the development of abnormal new vessels in the retina, optic nerve head or anterior segment of the eye. Argon laser photocoagulation has been the gold standard for the treatment of PDR for many years, using regimens evaluated by the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS). Over the years, there have been modifications of the technique and introduction of new laser technologies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different types of laser, other than argon laser, and different laser protocols, other than those established by the ETDRS, for the treatment of PDR. We compared different wavelengths; power and pulse duration; pattern, number and location of burns versus standard argon laser undertaken as specified by the ETDRS.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 5); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the search was 8 June 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pan-retinal photocoagulation (PRP) using standard argon laser for treatment of PDR compared with any other laser modality. We excluded studies of lasers that are not in common use, such as the xenon arc, ruby or Krypton laser.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed Cochrane guidelines and graded the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 11 studies from Europe (6), the USA (2), the Middle East (1) and Asia (2). Five studies compared different types of laser to argon: Nd:YAG (2 studies) or diode (3 studies). Other studies compared modifications to the standard argon laser PRP technique. The studies were poorly reported and we judged all to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain. The sample size varied from 20 to 270 eyes but the majority included 50 participants or fewer.Nd:YAG versus argon laser (2 studies): very low-certainty evidence on vision loss, vision gain, progression and regression of PDR, pain during laser treatment and adverse effects.Diode versus argon laser (3 studies): very-low certainty evidence on vision loss, vision gain, progression and regression of PDR and adverse effects; moderate-certainty evidence that diode laser was more painful (risk ratio (RR) troublesome pain during laser treatment (RR 3.12, 95% CI 2.16 to 4.51; eyes = 202; studies = 3; I² = 0%).0.5 second versus 0.1 second exposure (1 study): low-certainty evidence of lower chance of vision loss with 0.5 second compared with 0.1 second exposure but estimates were imprecise and compatible with no difference or an increased chance of vision loss (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.04, 44 eyes, 1 RCT); low-certainty evidence that people treated with 0.5 second exposure were more likely to gain vision (RR 2.22, 95% CI 0.68 to 7.28, 44 eyes, 1 RCT) but again the estimates were imprecise . People given 0.5 second exposure were more likely to have regression of PDR compared with 0.1 second laser PRP again with imprecise estimate (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.48, 32 eyes, 1 RCT). There was very low-certainty evidence on progression of PDR and adverse effects.'Light intensity' PRP versus classic PRP (1 study): vision loss or gain was not reported but the mean difference in logMAR acuity at 1 year was -0.09 logMAR (95% CI -0.22 to 0.04, 65 eyes, 1 RCT); and low-certainty evidence that fewer patients had pain during light PRP compared with classic PRP with an imprecise estimate compatible with increased or decreased pain (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.93, 65 eyes, 1 RCT).'Mild scatter' (laser pattern limited to 400 to 600 laser burns in one sitting) PRP versus standard 'full' scatter PRP (1 study): very low-certainty evidence on vision and visual field loss. No information on adverse effects.'Central' (a more central PRP in addition to mid-peripheral PRP) versus 'peripheral' standard PRP (1 study): low-certainty evidence that people treated with central PRP were more likely to lose 15 or more letters of BCVA compared with peripheral laser PRP (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.67 to 13.46, 50 eyes, 1 RCT); and less likely to gain 15 or more letters (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.08) with imprecise estimates compatible with increased or decreased risk.'Centre sparing' PRP (argon laser distribution limited to 3 disc diameters from the upper temporal and lower margin of the fovea) versus standard 'full scatter' PRP (1 study): low-certainty evidence that people treated with 'centre sparing' PRP were less likely to lose 15 or more ETDRS letters of BCVA compared with 'full scatter' PRP (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50, 53 eyes). Low-certainty evidence of similar risk of regression of PDR between groups (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.27, 53 eyes). Adverse events were not reported.'Extended targeted' PRP (to include the equator and any capillary non-perfusion areas between the vascular arcades) versus standard PRP (1 study): low-certainty evidence that people in the extended group had similar or slightly reduced chance of loss of 15 or more letters of BCVA compared with the standard PRP group (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.28, 270 eyes). Low-certainty evidence that people in the extended group had a similar or slightly increased chance of regression of PDR compared with the standard PRP group (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.31, 270 eyes). Very low-certainty information on adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Modern laser techniques and modalities have been developed to treat PDR. However there is limited evidence available with respect to the efficacy and safety of alternative laser systems or strategies compared with the standard argon laser as described in ETDRS.

Laser photocoagulation for proliferative diabetic retinopathy

BACKGROUND

Diabetic retinopathy is a complication of diabetes in which high blood sugar levels damage the blood vessels in the retina. Sometimes new blood vessels grow in the retina, and these can have harmful effects; this is known as proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Laser photocoagulation is an intervention that is commonly used to treat diabetic retinopathy, in which light energy is applied to the retina with the aim of stopping the growth and development of new blood vessels, and thereby preserving vision.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of laser photocoagulation for diabetic retinopathy compared to no treatment or deferred treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2014, Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to June 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to June 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 3 June 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where people (or eyes) with diabetic retinopathy were randomly allocated to laser photocoagulation or no treatment or deferred treatment. We excluded trials of lasers that are no longer in routine use. Our primary outcome was the proportion of people who lost 15 or more letters (3 lines) of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) as measured on a logMAR chart at 12 months. We also looked at longer-term follow-up of the primary outcome at two to five years. Secondary outcomes included mean best corrected distance visual acuity, severe visual loss, mean near visual acuity, progression of diabetic retinopathy, quality of life, pain, loss of driving licence, vitreous haemorrhage and retinal detachment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methods as expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. Two review authors selected studies and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified a large number of trials of laser photocoagulation of diabetic retinopathy (n = 83) but only five of these studies were eligible for inclusion in the review, i.e. they compared laser photocoagulation with currently available lasers to no (or deferred) treatment. Three studies were conducted in the USA, one study in the UK and one study in Japan. A total of 4786 people (9503 eyes) were included in these studies. The majority of participants in four of these trials were people with proliferative diabetic retinopathy; one trial recruited mainly people with non-proliferative retinopathy. Four of the studies evaluated panretinal photocoagulation with argon laser and one study investigated selective photocoagulation of non-perfusion areas. Three studies compared laser treatment to no treatment and two studies compared laser treatment to deferred laser treatment. All studies were at risk of performance bias because the treatment and control were different and no study attempted to produce a sham treatment. Three studies were considered to be at risk of attrition bias.At 12 months there was little difference between eyes that received laser photocoagulation and those allocated to no treatment (or deferred treatment), in terms of loss of 15 or more letters of visual acuity (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.11; 8926 eyes; 2 RCTs, low quality evidence). Longer term follow-up did not show a consistent pattern, but one study found a 20% reduction in risk of loss of 15 or more letters of visual acuity at five years with laser treatment. Treatment with laser reduced the risk of severe visual loss by over 50% at 12 months (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.86; 9276 eyes; 4 RCTs, moderate quality evidence). There was a beneficial effect on progression of diabetic retinopathy with treated eyes experiencing a 50% reduction in risk of progression of diabetic retinopathy (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.64; 8331 eyes; 4 RCTs, low quality evidence) and a similar reduction in risk of vitreous haemorrhage (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.85; 224 eyes; 2 RCTs, low quality evidence).None of the studies reported near visual acuity or patient-relevant outcomes such as quality of life, pain, loss of driving licence or adverse effects such as retinal detachment.We did not plan any subgroup analyses, but there was a difference in baseline risk in participants with non-proliferative retinopathy compared to those with proliferative retinopathy. With the small number of included studies we could not do a formal subgroup analysis comparing effect in proliferative and non-proliferative retinopathy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides evidence that laser photocoagulation is beneficial in treating proliferative diabetic retinopathy. We judged the evidence to be moderate or low, depending on the outcome. This is partly related to reporting of trials conducted many years ago, after which panretinal photocoagulation has become the mainstay of treatment of proliferative diabetic retinopathy.Future Cochrane Reviews on variations in the laser treatment protocol are planned. Future research on laser photocoagulation should investigate the combination of laser photocoagulation with newer treatments such as anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (anti-VEGFs).

Is it safe to discharge treated proliferative diabetic retinopathy patients from the hospital eye service to a community screening programme?

PURPOSE

To investigate the distribution of new vessels (NV) in patients treated with pan-retinal photocoagulation for proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). To assess whether it is safe to discharge treated PDR patients to the NHS Diabetic Eye Screening Programme (DESP) which uses two mydriatic 45° fields of each eye.

METHODS

Consecutive treated PDR patients undergoing fundus fluorescein angiography between July 2010 and October 2011 for the purpose of looking for NV were included. The distribution of NV was mapped. In particular it was noted whether NV occurred in the area covered by the DESP standard screening images.

RESULTS

A total of 76 patients (108 eyes) met the inclusion criteria for the study. Leaking NV were found inside the DESP fields in 89% of study patients. In 108 eyes with leaking NV, there were a total of 35 NVD and 336 NVE. NV were found within DESP fields in 83% of eyes. Of the 336 NVE, 54% occurred within and 46% outside DESP standard fields. There was no statistically significant difference in the retinal quadrant distribution of NVE.

CONCLUSIONS

If these findings apply to the whole treated PDR population, NVE would be identified in 89% of patients undergoing DESP screening. This would support stable treated PDR patients being monitored within the DESP. We found no preferential clustering of NV within quadrants or between posterior and less posterior retina suggesting that there would be no benefit to the DESP of taking an additional field or graders concentrating on one particular quadrant more than another.

Expression pattern of sigma receptor 1 mRNA and protein in mammalian retina

Sigma receptors are nonopiate and nonphencyclidine binding sites that are thought to be neuroprotective due to modulation of N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors. Sigma receptor 1 expression has been demonstrated in numerous tissues including brain. Recently, studies using binding assays have demonstrated sigma receptor 1 in neural retina, however these studies did not demonstrate in which retinal cell type(s) sigma receptor 1 was present nor did they establish unequivocally the molecular identity of the receptor. The present study was designed to address these issues. Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) analysis amplified sigma receptor 1 in neural retina, RPE-choroid complex, and lens isolated from mice. A similar RT-PCR product was amplified also in three cultured cell lines, rat Müller cells, rat ganglion cells and human ARPE-19 cells. In situ hybridization analysis revealed abundant sigma receptor 1 expression in ganglion cells, cells of the inner nuclear layer, inner segments of photoreceptor cells and retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) cells. Immunohistochemical studies detected the sigma receptor 1 protein in retinal ganglion, photoreceptor, RPE cells and surrounding the soma of cells in the inner nuclear layer. These data provide the first cellular localization of sigma receptor 1 in neural retina and establish the molecular identity of sigma receptor 1 in retinal cells. The demonstration that sigma receptor 1 is present in ganglion cells is particularly noteworthy given the well-documented susceptibility of these cells to glutamate toxicity. Our findings suggest that retinal ganglion cells may be amenable to the neuroprotective effects of sigma ligands under conditions of neurotoxicity such as occurs in diabetes.

Diode laser photocoagulation of choroidal neovascular membranes

BACKGROUND

Krypton or argon laser treatment of choroidal neovascularization (CNV) has been shown to be effective in reducing the incidence of severe visual loss. The usefulness of diode laser in the treatment of many chorioretinal disorders is currently under evaluation.

METHODS

Our study involved 42 eyes of 41 patients affected with CNV which were treated with a near infrared diode laser.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 10.12 months. Visual acuity improved in 12 eyes (28.6%), did not change in 17 eyes (40.5%) and worsened in 13 eyes (30.2%). Mean visual acuity before treatment was 0.23 and 0.21 after treatment. Recurrent CNV was seen in 13 eyes. In a subgroup of 24 well-defined juxtafoveal or extrafoveal CNVs which underwent direct photocoagulation visual acuity improved in 8 eyes (33.3%), was unchanged in 11 (45.8%) and worsened in 5 (20.9%). Five eyes showed recurrent CNV.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results appear to support the use of diode laser in the treatment of CNVs. The deeper penetration into the choriocapillaris of the diode wavelength could be effective in blocking CNV by inducing a more extensive chorioretinal atrophy.