4.6 Article

Enhanced Depth Imaging Optical Coherence Tomography in Type 2 Diabetes

Journal

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
Volume 53, Issue 10, Pages 6017-6024

Publisher

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.12-9692

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE. To investigate the changes in macular choroidal thickness in eyes with various stages of diabetic retinopathy, using enhanced depth imaging optical coherence tomography (EDI OCT). METHODS. Sixty-three consecutive diabetic patients-who presented without diabetic retinopathy (NDR); with diabetic retinopathy (nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy [NPDR]) and no clinically significant macular edema (CSME+); or with NDPR and clinically significant macular edema (CSME+)-underwent EDI OCT. Twenty-one age-and sex-matched healthy subjects (21 eyes) also underwent EDI OCT. RESULTS. A total of 63 eyes of 63 consecutive diabetic patients (26 female [41.2%]; mean age 65 +/- 9 years, range 48-83 years) were included in the analysis. Mean best-corrected visual acuity was 0.13 +/- 0.25 LogMAR (range 0-1). Mean CMT was 272.5 +/- 16.2 mu m in 21 NDR eyes, 294.5 +/- 23.5 mu m in 21 NPDR/CSME- eyes, and 385.6 +/- 75.1 mu m in 21 NPDR/CSME+ eyes. There was no difference in mean subfoveal choroidal thickness among each diabetic group (238.4 +/- 47.9 mu m [NDR], 207.0 +/- 55.9 mu m [NPDR/CSME-], 190.8 +/- 48.4 mu m [NPDR/CSME+]; P = 0.23). The mean subfoveal choroidal thickness was significantly reduced in each diabetic group compared with the control group (309.8 +/- 58.5 mu m, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS. In diabetic eyes, there is an overall thinning of the choroid on EDI OCT. A decreased choroidal thickness may lead to tissue hypoxia and consequently increase the level of VEGF, resulting in the breakdown of the blood-retinal barrier and development of macular edema. (Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012; 53: 6017-6024) DOI: 10.1167/iovs.12-9692

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