4.6 Article

Regional Comparisons of Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography Vessel Density in Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 171, 期 -, 页码 75-83

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2016.08.030

关键词

-

资金

  1. Optovue

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic abilities of the vessel densities in optic nerve head (ONH), peripapillary, and macular regions measured using optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) in eyes with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG), and to evaluate the effect of glaucoma severity (based on the mean deviation, MD), optic disc size, and pretreatment intraocular pressure (TOP). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Seventy-eight eyes of 53 control subjects and 64 eyes of 39 POAG patients underwent OCTA imaging. Area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (AUC) and sensitivities at fixed specificities of vessel densities in ONH, peripapillary, and macular regions were analyzed. ROC regression was used to evaluate the effect of covariates on the diagnostic abilities. RESULTS: The AUCs of ONH vessel densities ranged between 0.59 (superonasal sector) and 0.73 (average inside disc), peripapillary between 0.70 (nasal, superonasal and temporal) and 0.89 (inferotemporal), and macular between 0.56 (nasal) and 0.64 (temporal). AUC of the average peripapillary vessel density was significantly better than the average inside disc (P=.05) and macular (P=.005) measurement. MD showed a negative association with the AUCs of the vessel densities of all regions. Pretreatment TOP (coefficient: 0.09) showed a significant (P<.05) effect on the AUC of ONH vessel density. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic ability of the vessel density parameters of OCTA was only moderate. Macular and inside disc densities had significantly lower diagnostic abilities in POAG than the peripapillary density. Diagnostic abilities of vessel densities increased with increasing severity of glaucoma and that of ONH vessel density with higher pretreatment IOPs. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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