4.6 Article

Baseline retinal vascular bed area on ultra-wide field fluorescein angiography correlates with the anatomical outcome of diabetic macular oedema to ranibizumab therapy: two-year analysis of the DAVE Study

Journal

EYE
Volume 37, Issue 4, Pages 678-683

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41433-021-01777-7

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to investigate the relationship between baseline retinal non-perfusion area (NPA) and retinal vascular bed area (RVBA) with long-term response to intravitreal ranibizumab therapy. The results showed that patients with smaller baseline RVBA had better anatomical outcomes after long-term treatment.
Purpose To determine the relationship between baseline retinal non-perfusion area (NPA) and retinal vascular bed area (RVBA) on ultra-wide field fluorescein angiography (UWF FA) and long-term response to intravitreal ranibizumab therapy in diabetic macular oedema (DMO). Methods A post-hoc, 2-year observational case series. Baseline UWF FA images (Optos 200Tx) of 40 eyes from 29 patients with diabetes mellitus and treatment naive DMO in the DAVE (NCT01552408) study were montaged and stereographically projected at the Doheny Image Reading Center to adjust for peripheral distortion. The retinal vasculature was automatically extracted to calculate RVBA. NPA was manually delineated by two masked certified graders. RVBA and NPA were computed in mm(2) automatically by adjusting for peripheral distortion and then correlated with the severity of DMO. Results While global NPA at baseline was not correlated to retinal thickness measurements, baseline NPA in the superior retina was associated with the macular volume (MV) improvement (P = 0.022). Multivariate analysis revealed a smaller RVBA at baseline was correlated with a better MV outcome at two-year follow-up after adjusting for confounding factors (P = 0.049). Conclusion Eyes with smaller baseline RVBA appear to have a better long-term anatomic outcome of DMO.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available