4.6 Article

Relationship of Retinal Vascular Caliber with Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness: The Singapore Malay Eye Study

Journal

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
Volume 50, Issue 9, Pages 4091-4096

Publisher

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.09-3444

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. National Medical Research Council [0796/2003]
  2. Biomedical Research Council [501/1/25-5]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE. To describe the relationship of retinal arteriolar and venular caliber with retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness. METHODS. A population-based, cross-sectional study of Malay persons aged 40 to 80 years residing in Singapore was conducted from 2004 to 2006. Retinal arteriolar and venular calibers were measured with a computer-based technique according to a validated, standardized protocol. RNFL was assessed with retinal tomography. RESULTS. There were 2706 persons with gradable retinal photographs and HRT images of acceptable quality available for analysis. In linear regression models that adjusted for age, sex, diabetes, body mass index, intraocular pressure, and other factors, each standard deviation decrease in arteriolar and venular caliber was associated with a 5.81- and 8.37-mu m decrease, respectively, in mean global RNFL thickness (both P < 0.001). These associations remained similar after persons with glaucoma were excluded. In persons with glaucoma, retinal venular caliber was independently associated with the temporal and temporal-to-inferior region of mean RNFL thickness in multivariate analysis; each SD decrease in retinal venular diameter was associated with an 8.54-mu m decrease in the temporal region (P = 0.022), and a 38.32-mu m decrease in the temporal-to-inferior region (P = 0.006) of mean RNFL thickness. CONCLUSIONS. Narrower retinal vessel caliber was associated with reduced RNFL thickness in this Asian population. (Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009; 50: 4091-4096) DOI: 10.1167/iovs.09-3444

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