4.6 Article

Retinal haemorrhages on ultra-widefield red channel images and perfusion status in central retinal vein occlusion

期刊

EYE
卷 37, 期 11, 页码 2305-2309

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41433-022-02337-3

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between retinal haemorrhages detected on Ultra-widefield (UWF) red channel images and perfusion status in eyes with acute central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO). The results showed that red channel haemorrhages were significantly correlated with nonperfusion areas, confirming that UWF red channel imaging could be used to identify ischaemia-related haemorrhage in eyes with acute CRVO.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the relationship between retinal haemorrhages detected on Ultra-widefield (UWF) red channel images and perfusion status in eyes with acute central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO). METHODS: UWF fundus images were split into green and red channels using ImageJ software. The retinal haemorrhages were calculated quantitatively with both the green and red channel images, resulting in green channel haemorrhages (GCH) and red channel haemorrhages (RCH). The nonperfusion area (NPA) was also calculated from fluorescein angiography in each eye. The relationships between both the GCH and RCH with the NPA were investigated. RESULTS: Thirty-two eyes of 32 patients with acute CRVO (18 men, 14 women) were included. The mean GCH and RCH values were 10.4% +/- 8.2% and 1.7% +/- 1.7%, respectively. The mean NPA was 39.2%+/- 28.8%. Significant correlations were seen between the GCH and NPA (r = 0.38; P = 0.022) and RCH and NPA (r = 0.44; P = 0.010, linear regression analysis). Multivariate analysis suggested that only the RCHs were correlated significantly with the NPA. CONCLUSIONS: Retinal haemorrhages detected by UWF red channel imaging were less compared to green channel imaging and associated closely with retinal NPAs in eyes with acute CRVO.. UWF red channel imaging allowed us to identify ischaemia-related haemorrhage.

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