HEFT Repository

Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty after failed penetrating keratoplasty: survival, rejection risk, and visual outcome.

Mitry, Danny and Bhogal, Maninder and Patel, Amit K and Lee, Bryan S and Chai, Shu Ming and Price, Marianne O and Price, Francis W and Jun, Albert S and Aldave, Anthony J and Mehta, Jodhbir S and Busin, Massimo and Allan, Bruce D (2014) Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty after failed penetrating keratoplasty: survival, rejection risk, and visual outcome. JAMA ophthalmology, 132 (6). pp. 742-9. ISSN 2168-6173. This article is accessible to all HEFT staff and students via NHS Evidence www.evidence.nhs.uk by using their HEFT Athens login Ids

Full text not available from this repository.
Official URL: http://archopht.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?artic...

Abstract

IMPORTANCE

Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) for isolated endothelial dysfunction has become the preferred surgical option for many corneal surgeons. However, there are limited large-scale reports on DSAEK survival and clinical variables affecting the risk of rejection and failure after failed penetrating keratoplasty (PK).

OBJECTIVE

To report the survival, risk factors for graft rejection and failure, and visual outcome of DSAEK after failed PK.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A multicenter retrospective interventional case series included patients recruited from 6 tertiary referral surgical centers: 3 in the United States, 2 in Europe, and 1 in Asia. A total of 246 consecutive eyes (246 patients) that underwent DSAEK after failed PK, with a minimum follow-up period of 1 month, was included. Data comprising demographic details, preoperative and postoperative risk factors, time to rejection, time to failure, and corrected distance visual acuity were collected.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Cumulative probability of graft survival, hazard ratio estimates for survival, and corrected distance visual acuity were determined.

RESULTS

The mean (SD) recipient age was 63.2 (16.6) years and the median follow-up period was 17 months (interquartile range, 6-30 months). One-third of the grafts (n = 82) had follow-up data for more than 2 years; 18.3% had more than 1 failed PK before DSAEK. In total, 19.1% (47 of 246) of DSAEK grafts failed. The cumulative probability of DSAEK survival after a failed PK was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.84-0.92), 0.74 (95% CI, 0.64-0.81), and 0.47 (95% CI, 0.29-0.61) at 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years, respectively. Based on multivariate analysis, significant preoperative risk factors for failure were young recipient age (hazard ratio [HR], 5.18 [95% CI, 1.57-17.18]), previous tube filtration surgery (HR, 5.23 [95% CI, 1.47-7.33]), and rejection episodes before PK failure (HR, 3.28 [95% CI, 1.47-7.33]); single-surgeon centers had a protective effect. Any rejection episode prior to PK failure was a significant predictor of post-DSAEK rejection, which in turn was a significant predictor of DSAEK failure. After a median follow-up of 17 months, 33.3% of the grafts achieved 0.3 or greater logMAR (20/40) corrected distance visual acuity.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty after failed PK combines greater wound stability and reduced suture-related complications, with visual outcomes and graft survival rates comparable to those of a second PK.

Item Type: Article
Additional Information: This article is accessible to all HEFT staff and students via NHS Evidence www.evidence.nhs.uk by using their HEFT Athens login Ids
Subjects: WW Eyes. Ophthalmology
Divisions: Ambulatory Care > Ophthalmology
Related URLs:
Depositing User: Mr Philip O'Reilly
Date Deposited: 12 Sep 2014 15:03
Last Modified: 12 Sep 2014 15:03
URI: http://www.repository.heartofengland.nhs.uk/id/eprint/758

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item