4.7 Article

Assessment of the choroidal structure in pregnant women in the first trimester

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-84204-x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Anatomical differences in choroidal structure between pregnant women in the first trimester and healthy nonpregnant women were investigated using EDI-OCT and choroidal binarization analysis. The study identified a significant correlation between a larger choroidal luminal area and higher systolic blood pressure, particularly in the first trimester of pregnancy.
We investigated the anatomical differences in the choroidal structure between pregnant women in the first trimester of pregnancy and age-matched healthy nonpregnant women using enhanced depth imaging optical coherence tomography (EDI-OCT) and choroidal binarization analysis. The main parameters measured in the two study groups, namely, pregnant women in the first trimester and healthy nonpregnant women, were choroidal thickness and the choroidal luminal area. Binarization of the EDI-OCT images from each patient was performed, and the choroidal vascularity index (CVI) was calculated. The correlations between the baseline characteristics of the subjects and the CVI were investigated using linear mixed model analysis. As a result, there was no statistically significant difference in the mean age, best-corrected visual acuity, axial length, central retinal thickness, subfoveal choroidal thickness, systolic blood pressure (BP), or diastolic BP between the two study groups. Conversely, a significant difference was observed in the CVI (P=0.012) between the two groups. The multivariate analysis identified a significant correlation between the CVI and the systolic BP (P=0.0044, linear mixed test). Taken together, a larger choroidal luminal area was associated with a higher systolic BP, especially in the first trimester of pregnancy. Our findings may provide further insight into the choroidal changes that occur during pregnancy.

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

4.7
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