4.4 Article

PERIPHERAL RETINAL NONPERFUSION IN FELLOW EYES IN COATS DISEASE

Journal

RETINA-THE JOURNAL OF RETINAL AND VITREOUS DISEASES
Volume 33, Issue 8, Pages 1694-1699

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0b013e318285cb86

Keywords

Coats disease; peripheral nonperfusion; fellow eyes in Coats disease

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To measure peripheral nonperfusion and describe bilateral vascular abnormalities in patients with Coats disease, emphasizing subtle findings in the contralateral eyes of patients diagnosed with unilateral disease. Methods: Clinical records, including retina drawings and fluorescein angiography images obtained under anesthesia, were retrospectively reviewed from consecutive pediatric patients with Coats disease. The main outcome measure was disk diameters of peripheral nonperfusion and proportion of Coats disease patients with bilateral findings. Results: Twenty-two of 32 patients with Coats disease had bilateral abnormal peripheral vasculature. In Group 1 (classic Coats disease: presumed unilateral, ocular only disease), 15 of 24 patients had peripheral nonperfusion >2 disk diameters in their contralateral eyes, 5 with telangiectasis and/or microaneurysms. Seven of 8 patients in Group 2 (Coats-like disease: systemic and/or clinically bilateral disease) had bilateral vascular anomalies. Conclusion: Bilateral vascular abnormalities are more common in Coats disease than previously reported. This observation supports a systemic and/or genetic association with Coats disease. Patients with Coats disease should have careful evaluation of the periphery of the less affected eye, preferably with fluorescein angiography, to identify vascular changes not visible clinically. Both eyes warrant surveillance over the lifetime of the patient for potential progression to exudative disease that would warrant treatment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available