Determining the Superiority of Vitrectomy vs Aflibercept for Treating Dense Diabetic Vitreous Hemorrhage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

• Published in: Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) Vol. 17; pp. 2359 - 2370
• Main Authors: Quiroz-Reyes, Miguel, Quiroz-Gonzalez, Erick, Quiroz-Gonzalez, Miguel, Lima-Gómez, Virgilio
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Dove 01.01.2023; Dove Medical Press
• Subjects: aflibercept; anti-vegf; intravitreal injection; proliferative diabetic retinopathy; Review; vitrectomy
• ISSN: 1177-5483; 1177-5467; 1177-5483
• DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S419478

This review aimed to systematically compare the efficacy and safety of intravitreal aflibercept (IVA) and vitrectomy for treating severe vitreous hemorrhage (VH) secondary to proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). The review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. A search strategy, including the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and US National Library of Medicine databases, was developed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared vitrectomy and IVA for managing VH due to PDR (participant age ≥ 18 years). The primary outcome measure was the difference in the mean visual acuity between the two treatment groups at 1, 6, and 24 months. Outcome measures included clearance of VH (in weeks), the incidence of recurrent VH, and the rate of complications. The studies were evaluated using the Cochrane Bias (ROB) tool. We identified 774 articles; six articles met the inclusion criteria, and two were ultimately included (n = 239 eyes). With or without PRP, IVA injections and vitrectomy were performed in 117 and 122 eyes, respectively. The mean BCVA at one month was significantly better in the vitrectomy group (MD=0.22, CI:0.10–0.34, p=0.0003), but no difference was found at six months (MD=0.04, CI: −0.04–0.12, p=0.356). The incidence of recurrent VH was significantly higher in the IVA group (OR=5.05, CI:2.71–9.42, p<0.0001). The probability of recurrent VH was five times greater in the IVA group than that in the vitrectomy group. There were no significant differences in the overall proportions of intra- or postoperative complications (OR=0.64, CI: 0.09–4.85, p=0.669). None of the studies had a low ROB in any of the seven domains. We conclude that IVA can be considered a viable treatment modality for diabetic VH in patients with a good follow-up. Vitrectomy initially provides better visual effect, faster VH recovery, and lower VH recurrence than IVA injections.