4.0 Article

Association Between Subfoveal Choroidal Thickness, Reticular Pseudodrusen, and Geographic Atrophy in Age-Related Macular Degeneration

Journal

OPHTHALMIC SURGERY LASERS & IMAGING RETINA
Volume 46, Issue 5, Pages 513-521

Publisher

SLACK INC
DOI: 10.3928/23258160-20150521-02

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Alexion Pharmaceuticals
  2. Carl Zeiss Meditec (Dublin, California)
  3. Macula Vision Research Foundation
  4. Research to Prevent Blindness
  5. Feig Family Foundation
  6. Emma Clyde Hodge Memorial Foundation
  7. National Eye Institute [R01EY024158, P30EY014801]
  8. Carl Zeiss Meditec
  9. Acucela
  10. Advanced Cell Technology
  11. GlaxoSmithKline
  12. Bayer
  13. Genentech
  14. Allergan
  15. Optos

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To compare subfoveal choroidal thickness (CT) measurements in eyes with nonexudative age-related macular degeneration (AMD) in the presence or absence of reticular pseudodrusen (RPD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Subfoveal CT measurements obtained from patients with AMD enrolled in the COMPLETE study (30 drusen-only eyes and 30 eyes with geographic atrophy [GA]) were compared with an age-distributed normal control group. Multimodal images were evaluated to detect the presence of RPD. RESULTS: After controlling for age and axial length, the mean CT was significantly thinner in the GA group with RPD (213.7 +/- 53.1 mu m) than in the GA group without RPD (335.3 +/- 123.2 mu m; P =.001). The mean CT in the GA group without RPD was not statistically different from the mean CT in the normal control group (P = .076) or the drusen group without RPD (P = .45). In eyes without RPD, there was a correlation between the increasing size of GA and a decrease in CT measurements. CONCLUSION: Subfoveal choroidal thinning in eyes with nonexudative AMD was associated with the presence of RPD. In the absence of RPD, CT only decreased as the size of GA increased.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available