TY - JOUR
T1 - The ahmed versus baerveldt study
T2 - Three-year treatment outcomes
AU - Christakis, Panos G.
AU - Tsai, James C.
AU - Kalenak, Jeffrey W.
AU - Zurakowski, David
AU - Cantor, Louis B.
AU - Kammer, Jeffrey A.
AU - Ahmed, Iqbal I.K.
N1 - Funding Information:
The AVB Study is supported by a research grant from the Glaucoma Research Society of Canada , Toronto, Canada (I.I.K.A., P.G.C.), and a departmental challenge grant from Research to Prevent Blindness, Inc. , New York, New York (J.C.T.). The research funding sponsors had no role in the design or conduct of the study. Dr. Ahmed has received speaker's honoraria from Abbott Medical Optics, Inc., and New World Medical, Inc.; Dr. Cantor has been a consultant for Abbott Medical Optics, Inc.
PY - 2013/11
Y1 - 2013/11
N2 - Objective: To compare 2 commonly used aqueous drainage devices for the treatment of refractory glaucoma. Design: International, multicenter, randomized trial. Participants: Patients aged 18 years or older with uncontrolled or high-risk glaucoma refractory to maximum medical therapy, many of whom had failed trabeculoplasty and trabeculectomy. Methods: Eligible patients were randomized to an Ahmed-FP7 valve implant (New World Medical, Inc., Rancho Cucamonga, CA) or a Baerveldt-350 implant (Abbott Medical Optics, Inc., Santa Ana, CA) using a standardized surgical technique. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was failure, defined as intraocular pressure (IOP) outside of the target range (5-18 mmHg, with ≥20% reduction from baseline) for 2 consecutive visits after 3 months, vision-threatening complications, de novo glaucoma procedures, or loss of light perception. Secondary outcome measures include IOP, medication use, visual acuity, complications, and interventions. Results: A total of 238 patients were enrolled and randomized; 124 received the Ahmed implant and 114 received the Baerveldt implant. Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. Half the study group had secondary glaucoma, and 37% had previously failed trabeculectomy. The mean preoperative IOP was 31.4±10.8 mmHg on 3.1±1.0 glaucoma medications. Median baseline Snellen visual acuity was 20/100. At 3 years, the cumulative probability of failure was 51% in the Ahmed group and 34% in the Baerveldt group (P = 0.03). Mean IOP was 15.7±4.8 mmHg in the Ahmed group (49% reduction) and 14.4±5.1 mmHg in the Baerveldt group (55% reduction; P = 0.09). Mean number of glaucoma medications was 1.8±1.4 in the Ahmed group (42% reduction) and 1.1±1.3 in the Baerveldt group (65% reduction; P = 0.002). There was a moderate but similar decrease in visual acuity in both groups (P < 0.001). The 2 groups had similar complication rates (52% Ahmed, 62% Baerveldt; P = 0.12); however, the Baerveldt group had a higher rate of hypotony-related vision-threatening complications (0% Ahmed, 6% Baerveldt; P = 0.005). More interventions were required in the Baerveldt group, although the difference did not reach statistical significance (38% Ahmed, 50% Baerveldt; P = 0.07). Most complications were transient, and most interventions were slit-lamp procedures. Conclusions: Both devices were effective in reducing IOP and glaucoma medications. The Baerveldt group had a lower failure rate and required fewer medications than the Ahmed group after 3 years, but it experienced more hypotony-related vision-threatening complications. Financial Disclosure(s): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.
AB - Objective: To compare 2 commonly used aqueous drainage devices for the treatment of refractory glaucoma. Design: International, multicenter, randomized trial. Participants: Patients aged 18 years or older with uncontrolled or high-risk glaucoma refractory to maximum medical therapy, many of whom had failed trabeculoplasty and trabeculectomy. Methods: Eligible patients were randomized to an Ahmed-FP7 valve implant (New World Medical, Inc., Rancho Cucamonga, CA) or a Baerveldt-350 implant (Abbott Medical Optics, Inc., Santa Ana, CA) using a standardized surgical technique. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was failure, defined as intraocular pressure (IOP) outside of the target range (5-18 mmHg, with ≥20% reduction from baseline) for 2 consecutive visits after 3 months, vision-threatening complications, de novo glaucoma procedures, or loss of light perception. Secondary outcome measures include IOP, medication use, visual acuity, complications, and interventions. Results: A total of 238 patients were enrolled and randomized; 124 received the Ahmed implant and 114 received the Baerveldt implant. Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. Half the study group had secondary glaucoma, and 37% had previously failed trabeculectomy. The mean preoperative IOP was 31.4±10.8 mmHg on 3.1±1.0 glaucoma medications. Median baseline Snellen visual acuity was 20/100. At 3 years, the cumulative probability of failure was 51% in the Ahmed group and 34% in the Baerveldt group (P = 0.03). Mean IOP was 15.7±4.8 mmHg in the Ahmed group (49% reduction) and 14.4±5.1 mmHg in the Baerveldt group (55% reduction; P = 0.09). Mean number of glaucoma medications was 1.8±1.4 in the Ahmed group (42% reduction) and 1.1±1.3 in the Baerveldt group (65% reduction; P = 0.002). There was a moderate but similar decrease in visual acuity in both groups (P < 0.001). The 2 groups had similar complication rates (52% Ahmed, 62% Baerveldt; P = 0.12); however, the Baerveldt group had a higher rate of hypotony-related vision-threatening complications (0% Ahmed, 6% Baerveldt; P = 0.005). More interventions were required in the Baerveldt group, although the difference did not reach statistical significance (38% Ahmed, 50% Baerveldt; P = 0.07). Most complications were transient, and most interventions were slit-lamp procedures. Conclusions: Both devices were effective in reducing IOP and glaucoma medications. The Baerveldt group had a lower failure rate and required fewer medications than the Ahmed group after 3 years, but it experienced more hypotony-related vision-threatening complications. Financial Disclosure(s): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84887183646&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.04.018
DO - 10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.04.018
M3 - Article
C2 - 23796764
AN - SCOPUS:84887183646
SN - 0161-6420
VL - 120
SP - 2232
EP - 2240
JO - Ophthalmology
JF - Ophthalmology
IS - 11
ER -