Article Text

Download PDFPDF
CASE REPORT
Indapamide-induced bilateral choroidal effusion in pseudophakic patient.
  1. Maria Phylactou,
  2. Francesco Matarazzo,
  3. Emma Jones
  1. 162 City Road, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Ms Maria Phylactou, phylactou.maria{at}gmail.com

Summary

We describe a case of indapamide-induced bilateral choroidal effusion, first time reported in pseudophakic patient, associated with no change in visual acuity and stable refraction.

A 70-year-old man was referred for ophthalmic assessment, with binasal visual field defect for 2 days. He had been started on treatment with indapamide 3 weeks earlier. His ophthalmic history included bilateral cataract surgery and intraocular lens implant. Fundal examination revealed bilateral choroidal effusions; B-scan ultrasonography was used to measure the extent of the choroidal detachment and the anterior chamber depth. Discontinuation of indapamide resulted in spontaneous resolution of choroidal effusion after 3 days. Our case is the first in the literature that describes bilateral choroidal effusion induced by indapamide in a pseudophakic patient. The lack of myopic shift likely resulted in a later presentation, enhancing the theory that lens thickening and/or accommodative spasm may play a crucial role in pathophysiology.

  • retina
  • drug interactions
  • eye

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors MP, FM and EJ have equally contributed to paper preparation and writing. EJ has critically reviewed the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Obtained.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.