3.8 Article

Evaluating diurnal variations in retinal perfusion using optical coherence tomography angiography

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s40942-020-00227-y

关键词

OCTA; Retinal perfusion; Diurnal variation; Foveal avascular zone; Macular volume; Superficial plexus; Deep plexus; Full retina; Autoregulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundOptical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) is a non-invasive tool for imaging and quantifying the retinal and choroidal vasculature as well as perfusion state in healthy eyes. Choroidal perfusion is subject to diurnal variation, showing lowest perfusion in the morning and highest in the afternoon. In this index study, OCTA was used to investigate diurnal changes of the retinal perfusion in healthy adult eyes and to identify impacting factors since retinal perfusion is known to be mainly determined by autoregulatory mechanisms.MethodsA prospective study was conducted on healthy volunteers, each of whom underwent repeated measurements of mean arterial pressure (MAP), intraocular pressure (IOP), macular volume (MV), subfoveal choroidal thickness (SFCT), foveal avascular zone (FAZ) and retinal perfusion of the superficial capillary plexus (SCP), deep capillary plexus (DCP) and full retina (FR) slab at 7 a.m. and 4 p.m. Possible influence of MAP or IOP on the retinal perfusion was evaluated.ResultsA total of 22 eyes of 22 participants (mean age 55.9114.84) were analysed. Significant diurnal changes from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. were observed for MAP (p<0.001) and SFCT (p=0.017). The perfusion of SCP, DCP and FR as well as the size of the FAZ and the MV did not show significant fluctuation during the day. No significant correlation between MAP or IOP and retinal perfusion values were detectable.Conclusion OCTA-based analysis of the retina in healthy adults demonstrated a steady perfusion of both plexus during the day, independently of changes in MAP. These findings support the theory of autoregulatory mechanisms of the retinal blood flow.

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

3.8
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