4.4 Article

DETECTION OF NONEXUDATIVE CHOROIDAL NEOVASCULARIZATION IN AGE-RELATED MACULAR DEGENERATION WITH OPTICAL COHERENCE TOMOGRAPHY ANGIOGRAPHY

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000000867

关键词

age-related macular degeneration; choroidal neovascularization; diagnostic retinal; imaging; optical coherence tomography angiography

资金

  1. NIH [R01EY024544, DP3 DK104397, R01EY023285, P30 EY010572, T32EY23211]
  2. Clinical and Translational Science Awards [UL1TR000128]
  3. Research to Prevent Blindness

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To evaluate eyes with age-related macular degeneration and high-risk characteristics for choroidal neovascularization (CNV) with optical coherence tomographic (OCT) angiography to determine whether earlier detection of CNV is possible. Methods: Eyes with drusen, pigmentary changes, and with CNV in the fellow eye were scanned with a 70-kHz spectral domain OCT system (Optovue RTVue-XR Avanti). The split-spectrum amplitude-decorrelation angiography (SSADA) algorithm was used to distinguish blood flow from static tissue. Two masked graders reviewed scans for CNV, defined as flow in the outer retinal/sub-RPE slab. Choroidal neovascularization flow area repeatability and between-grader reproducibility were calculated. Results: Of 32 eyes, 2 (6%) were found to have Type 1 CNV with OCT angiography. The lesions were not associated with leakage on fluorescein angiography or fluid on OCT. One case was followed for 8 months without treatment, and the CNV flow area enlarged slightly without fluid buildup on OCT or vision loss. Between-grader reproducibility of the CNV flow area was 9.4% (coefficient of variation) and within-visit repeatability was 5.2% (pooled coefficient of variation). Conclusion: Optical coherence tomographic angiography can detect the presence of nonexudative CNV, lesions difficult to identify with fluorescein angiography and OCT. Further study is needed to understand the significance and natural history of these lesions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据