# Submacular Hemorrhage Management: Evolving Strategies from Pharmacologic Displacement to Surgical Intervention

## TL;DR

This review discusses the latest strategies for managing submacular hemorrhage, emphasizing the importance of timely and tailored treatment to prevent vision loss.

## Contribution

The paper provides an updated synthesis of recent surgical and pharmacological advances in submacular hemorrhage management over the past five years.

## Key findings

- Pneumatic displacement with intravitreal rtPA is effective for small and recent submacular hemorrhages.
- PPV combined with subretinal rtPA and anti-VEGF therapy shows favorable outcomes for medium to large hemorrhages.
- Delayed intervention beyond 14 days correlates with reduced visual recovery due to blood organization.

## Abstract

Background: Submacular hemorrhage (SMH) is a vision-threatening condition most associated with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), although it may also arise from polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy, pathological myopia, retinal vascular diseases, trauma, and systemic factors. Rapid management is essential because subretinal blood induces photoreceptor toxicity, clot organization, and fibroglial scarring, leading to irreversible visual loss. The choice and urgency of treatment depend on hemorrhage size, duration, and underlying pathology, and the patient’s surgical risk category, which can influence the invasiveness of the selected procedure. This review aims to provide an updated synthesis of recent advances in the surgical and pharmacological management of SMH, focusing on evidence from the past five years and comparing outcomes across major interventional approaches. Methods: A narrative review of 27 recent clinical and multicentre studies was conducted. The included literature evaluated pneumatic displacement (PD), pars plana vitrectomy (PPV), subretinal or intravitreal recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA), anti-VEGF therapy, and hybrid techniques. Studies were analyzed about indications, surgical methods, timing of intervention, anatomical and functional outcomes, and complication and patient risk stratification. Results: Outcomes varied depending on the size and duration of hemorrhage, as well as the activity of underlying macular neovascularization. PD with intravitreal rtPA was reported as effective for small and recent SMH. PPV combined with subretinal rtPA, filtered air, and anti-VEGF therapy demonstrated favorable displacement and visual outcomes in medium to large hemorrhages or those associated with active nAMD. Hybrid techniques further improved clot mobilization in selected cases. Across studies, delayed intervention beyond 14 days correlated with reduced visual recovery due to blood organization and photoreceptor loss. Potential risks, including recurrent bleeding and rtPA-associated toxicity, were reported but varied across studies. Conclusions: Management should be individualized, considering hemorrhage characteristics and surgical risk. Laser therapy, including PDT, may serve as an adjunct in the perioperative or postoperative period, particularly in PCV patients. Early, tailored intervention typically yields the best functional outcomes.