Evidence Hub

Retinal artery occlusion in young patients without typical cardiovascular risk factors: etiologies, prognosis, and suggested work-up

Maiz AM, Murali S, Miller JML

Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2024

74 participants

Abstract

PURPOSE: To understand the etiology, work-up, and secondary systemic and ocular events of retinal artery occlusion (RAO) in young patients (≤ 45 years old) without typical cardiovascular risk factors.

METHODS: Retrospective longitudinal case series of 18 young patients with RAO and without typical cardiovascular risk factors evaluated at the University of Michigan Medicine Health System between the year 2000 and 2022. Laboratory and imaging studies performed at the time of RAO diagnosis, along with systemic and ocular events during follow-up, were recorded. These data were combined with data from a literature review of 74 similar patients experiencing a RAO.

RESULTS: Fifteen (83%) of patients were female and 10 (56%) suffered a branch retinal artery occlusion (BRAO). 56% of patients had one risk factor associated with cryptogenic stroke, most commonly a migraine history (33%). The most frequent etiology of RAO was vasculitis (28%), followed by idiopathic (22%) and patent foramen ovale (PFO, 17%). Three out of four patients with idiopathic RAOs developed new migraines around the time of RAO diagnosis, whereas none of the patients with a clear etiology had new onset migraines (n = 14). No patients suffered a stroke or myocardial infarction (MI) in the follow-up period (average 3.6 years ± 3.2 years). Two patients (11%) suffered a repeat RAO, both of whom were diagnosed with a vasculitis. Patients with isolated retinal vasculitis required repeat fluorescein angiograms for up to…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 74 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free