4.3 Article

Multimodal Evaluation of the Fellow Eye of Patients with Retinal Angiomatous Proliferation

Journal

OPHTHALMIC RESEARCH
Volume 59, Issue 2, Pages 88-97

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000481262

Keywords

Fellow eye; Imaging markers; Optical coherence tomography angiography; Retinal angiomatous proliferation; Spectral-domain optical coherence tomography

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: We conducted a multimodal, cross-sectional evaluation. Methods: Eyes were divided into 4 study groups: controls, early/intermediate age-related macular degeneration (AMD), fellow eyes of retinal angiomatous proliferation (RAP), and RAP eyes. Patients were evaluated with spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (OCT), enhanced depth imaging-OCT, and OCT angiography (OCTA). OCTA images were processed to generate maps of the vessel density and perfusion density of the superficial and deep retinal layers (SRL and DRL) and the choriocapillaris level (CL). The thickness of the outer nuclear layer and choroid was manually assessed. Results: We included 135 eyes of 100 patients ( 51 controls, 30 AMD, 42 RAP, and 12 fellow eyes). The fellow eyes showed a significantly lower vascular perfusion of the SRL, DRL, and CL (p < 0.02) than the early/intermediate AMD and control eyes did. Similarly, RAP eyes presented a lower vascular perfusion of the DRL and CL (p < 0.05). Besides, structural analyses of the fellow eyes and RAP eyes revealed a significantly higher prevalence of macular pigmentary changes, atrophy of the retinal pigment epithelium, hyper-reflective clumps above flat drusen, amongst others, than early/intermediate AMD and control eyes (p < 0.05). Conclusion: We present the first report on the OCTA analysis of the fellow eye of patients with RAP. The reduced perfusion density and vessel density observed contributes, in association with clearly defined structural changes, to a wider characterization of RAP as a distinctive phenotype. (C) 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available