4.6 Article

Optical coherence tomography angiography of optic nerve head and parafovea in multiple sclerosis

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 98, Issue 10, Pages 1368-1373

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-304547

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NIH [UL1TR000128, R01 EY023285, R01 EY013516, R01-EY11289, P30EY010572]
  2. AFOSR [FA9550-10-1-0551, FA9550-12-1-0499]
  3. German Research Foundation [DFG-HO-1791/11-1]
  4. Research to Prevent Blindness

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims To investigate swept-source optical coherence tomography (OCT) angiography in the optic nerve head (ONH) and parafoveal regions in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Methods Fifty-two MS eyes and 21 healthy control (HC) eyes were included. There were two MS subgroups: 38 MS eyes without an optic neuritis (ON) history (MS -ON), and 14 MS eyes with an ON history (MS +ON). The OCT images were captured by high-speed 1050 nm swept-source OCT. The ONH flow index (FI) and parafoveal FI were quantified from OCT angiograms. Results The mean ONH FI was 0.160 +/- 0.010 for the HC group, 0.156 +/- 0.017 for the MS-ON group, and 0.140 +/- 0.020 for the MS+ON group. The ONH FI of the MS+ON group was reduced by 12.5% compared to HC eyes (p=0.004). A higher percentage of MS+ON eyes had abnormal ONH FI compared to HC patients (43% vs 5%, p=0.01). Mean parafoveal FIs were 0.126 +/- 0.007, 0.127 +/- 0.010, and 0.129 +/- 0.005 for the HC, MS-ON, and MS +ON groups, respectively, and did not differ significantly among them. The coefficient of variation (CV) of intravisit repeatability and intervisit reproducibility were 1.03% and 4.53% for ONH FI, and 1.65% and 3.55% for parafoveal FI. Conclusions Based on OCT angiography, the FI measurement is feasible, highly repeatable and reproducible, and it is suitable for clinical measurement of ONH and parafoveal perfusion. The ONH FI may be useful in detecting damage from ON and quantifying its severity.

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