4.4 Article

SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF ORAL FLUORESCEIN ANGIOGRAPHY IN DETECTING MACULAR EDEMA IN COMPARISON WITH SPECTRAL-DOMAIN OPTICAL COHERENCE TOMOGRAPHY

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0b013e318285cd84

关键词

oral fluorescein angiography; spectral-domain optical coherence tomography; macular edema

资金

  1. NIH [R01EY007366, R01EY018589, R01EY020617, R01EY016323]
  2. RPB incorporated
  3. Jacobs Retina Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To evaluate the safety of oral fluorescein angiography (FA) and to compare its efficacy in detection of macular edema (ME) with spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT). Methods: Results of imaging studies for 1,928 eyes of 1,019 patients who had simultaneously undergone both oral FA and SD-OCT by a confocal laser ophthalmoscope were reviewed. Sensitivity in detecting ME, discrepancy rate, and kappa agreement were determined for both the techniques and with eyes stratified by disease diagnosis. Results: No allergic reactions occurred after oral FA. Mild gastric discomfort was noted in <1% of the patients; 1,840 eyes (95.4%) showed concordance between the two techniques, and kappa agreement was 90.3%. For ME, oral FA showed an overall sensitivity of 0.97 and SD-OCT of 0.91. Equivalent sensitivity was found in cases of wet age-related macular degeneration (0.99). Oral FA was more sensitive than SD-OCT in cases of retinovascular diseases. The SD-OCT showed higher sensitivity in cases of macular holes. Detection of ME by SD-OCT was significantly higher in cases of intense leakage on oral FA (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Oral FA proved to be a safe and an adequate technique to evaluate ME. It is more sensitive than SD-OCT in detection of ME in cases of retinovascular diseases but can fail to detect ME in cases of macular holes. A noninvasive examination with simultaneous oral FA and SD-OCT may be considered to obtain a comprehensive evaluation of the presence of ME from different pathologies.

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