4.6 Article

Association Between Clinical Biomarkers and Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography Parameters in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Journal

Publisher

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.61.3.4

Keywords

optical coherence tomography angiography; diabetes mellitus; diabetic retinopathy; foveal avascular zone; vessel density; perfusion index; insulin; homeostasis model assessment

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE. To investigate the clinical significance of the changes in the macular microvasculature in patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 without diabetic retinopathy. METHODS. Fifty-five patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 without diabetic retinopathy and 48 healthy individuals were enrolled in a prospective cross-sectional study. We identified the changes of optical coherence tomography angiography parameters (foveal avascular zone [FAZ] area and circularity, vessel density, and perfusion index) of the 6 x 6-mm macular scan. Correlation and multiple regression analyses were performed between optical coherence tomography angiography parameters and previously known diabetes mellitus type 2-related demographic and systemic characteristics, and serum biochemical markers. RESULTS. FAZ parameters and perfusion index of the superficial and deep vascular plexus showed significant correlation with serum insulin level, and homeostasis model assessment indices. In multiple linear regression analysis, low insulin levels predicted increased FAZ areas in both the superficial (beta = -0.007; P = 0.030) and deep layers (beta = -0.010; P = 0.018) and a decreased perfusion index in the deep layer (beta = 0.003; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS. The expansion and loss of circularity of the FAZ and the decrease in the perfusion index may be affected by insulin resistance and secretory capacity in patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 with no diabetic retinopathy.

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