Effect of urokinase thrombolytic therapy for optic artery and retinal artery occlusion caused by facial microinjection with hyaluronic acid and spontaneous retinal artery occlusion

Abstract

Objective To compare the clinical effects of urokinase thrombolytic therapy for optic artery occlusion (OAO) and retinal artery occlusion (RAO) caused by facial microinjection with hyaluronic acid and spontaneous RAO. Methods From January 2014 to February 2018, 22 eyes of 22 patients with OAO and RAO caused by facial microinjection of hyaluronic acid who received treatment in Xi'an Fourth Hospital were enrolled in this retrospective study (hyaluronic acid group). Twenty-two eyes of 22 patients with spontaneous RAO were selected as the control group. The BCVA examination was performed using the international standard visual acuity chart, which was converted into logMAR visual acuity. FFA was used to measure arm-retinal circulation time (A-Rct) and filling time of retinal artery and its branches (FT). Meanwhile, MRI examination was performed. There were significant differences in age and FT between the two groups (t=14.840, 3.263; P=0.000, 0.003). The differecens of logMAR visual acuity, onset time and A-Rct were not statistically significant between the two groups (t=0.461, 0.107, 1.101; P=0.647, 0.915, 0.277). All patients underwent urokinase thrombolysis after exclusion of thrombolytic therapy. Among the patients in the hyaluronic acid group and control group, there were 6 patients of retrograde ophthalmic thrombolysis via the superior pulchlear artery, 6 patients of retrograde ophthalmic thrombolysis via the internal carotid artery, and 10 patients of intravenous thrombolysis. FFA was reviewed 24 h after treatment, and A-Rct and FT were recorded. Visual acuity was reviewed 30 days after treatment. The occurrence of adverse reactions during and after treatment were observed. The changes of logMAR visual acuity, A-Rct and FT before and after treatment were compared between the two groups using ttest. Results At 24 h after treatment, the A-Rct and FT of the hyaluronic acid group were 21.05±3.42 s and 5.05±2.52 s, which were significantly shorter than before treatment (t=4.569, 2.730; P=0.000, 0.000); the A-Rct and FT in the control group were 19.55±4.14 s and 2.55±0.91 s, which were significantly shorter than before treatment (t=4.114, 7.601; P=0.000, 0.000). There was no significant difference in A-Rct between the two groups at 24 h after treatment (t=1.311, P=0.197). The FT difference was statistically significant between the two groups at 24 h after treatment (t=4.382, P=0.000). There was no significant difference in the shortening time of A-Rct and FT between the two groups (t=0.330, 0.510; P=0.743, 0.613). At 30 days after treatment, the logMAR visual acuity in the hyaluronic acid group and the control group were 0.62±0.32 and 0.43±0.17, which were significantly higher than those before treatment (t=2.289, 5.169; P=0.029, 0.000). The difference of logMAR visual acuity between the two groups after treatment was statistically significant (t=2.872, P=0.008). The difference in logMAR visual acuity before and after treatment between the two groups was statistically significant (t=2.239, P=0.025). No ocular or systemic adverse reactions occurred during or after treatment in all patients. Conclusions Urokinase thrombolytic therapy for OAO and RAO caused by facial microinjection with hyaluronic acid and spontaneous RAO is safe and effective, with shortening A-Rct, FT and improving visual acuity. However, the improvement of visual acuity after treatment of OAO and RAO caused by facial microinjection with hyaluronic acid is worse than that of spontaneous RAO. Key words: Retinal artery occlusion/drug therapy; Thrombolytic therapy; Hyaluronic acid; Ophthalmic artery obstruction; Facial injections