Purpose To compare the effect of intravitreal bevacizumab vs intravitreal triamcinolone for the treatment of non-ischaemic central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO). Methods The comparative nonrandomized retrospective clinical interventional study included 72 patients with non-ischaemic CRVO, divided into a bevacizumab group of 30 patients (1.25 mg bevacizumab) and a triamcinolone group of 42 patients (4.0 mg triamcinolone). All patients were consecutively included. At baseline, both study groups did not vary significantly in visual acuity, macular thickness, and duration of symptoms (191 ± 300 days vs 222 ± 256 days). The minimal follow-up was 3 months (mean: 7.8 ± 4.3 months; range: 3-12 months). During follow-up, 1.3 ± 0.4 reinjections of the triamcinolone group (range: 1-2 injections) and 2.7±1.8 re-injections of bevacizumab (range:1-6 injections) were administered. Results In both study groups, the mean visual acuity increased significantly (Po0.001) from baseline during follow-up. The differences in gain in visual acuity were not statistically significant (P40.40) between both study groups at any time during follow-up. The mean macular thickness decreased significantly (Po0.001) in both study groups, with the reduction being significantly (P ¼ 0.006) more pronounced in the triamcinolone group. Intraocular pressure increased significantly (Po0.001) in the triamcinolone group. ConclusionsIn long-standing non-ischaemic CRVO, intravitreal bevacizumab and intravitreal triamcinolone are both associated with a comparable gain in visual acuity. The reduction in macular oedema was more marked in the triamcinolone group. In view of the potential complications of intravitreal triamcinolone in terms of intraocular pressure rise and cataractogenesis, bevacizumab may be preferred compared with triamcinolone for intravitreal use in non-ischaemic CRVO. Retinal vein occlusions belong to the most common retinal disorders affecting the macula and reducing central visual acuity. [1][2][3] In a recent populationbased study, retinal vein occlusions were detected in about 0.7% of eyes of adult Chinese aged 40 þ years. Branch retinal vein occlusions were about 12 times more common than central retinal vein occlusions (CRVOs), and the non-ischaemic type was about 9 times more common than the ischaemic type. From a pathogenic point of view, a decreased tissue perfusion and an increased hydrostatic pressure within the involved segments as a consequence of the vascular obstruction may lead to intraretinal haemorrhages, exudation of fluid, varying levels of tissue ischaemia, and eventually to intraocular neovascularization, if retinal ischaemia is pronounced. 4 Although the Central Vein Occlusion Study Group has shown the beneficial of panretinal