4.7 Article

Neural Retinal Disorganization as a Robust Marker of Visual Acuity in Current and Resolved Diabetic Macular Edema

期刊

DIABETES
卷 64, 期 7, 页码 2560-2570

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/db14-0782

关键词

-

资金

  1. Eleanor Chesterman Beatson Childcare Ambassador Program Foundation Grant (Tucson, AZ)
  2. JDRF International (New York, NY) [JDRF 17-2011-359, 3-SRA-2014-264-M-R]
  3. Massachusetts Lions Eye Research Fund (New Bedford, MA)
  4. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Eye Institute [1-R01-EY-024702-01]
  5. Harvard Medical School Scholars in Medicine Office (Boston, MA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite treatment advances, diabetic eye disease remains a leading cause of visual acuity (VA) loss worldwide. No methods to prospectively determine which patients will gain or lose vision exist, limiting individualized risk assessment and management. We investigated whether noninvasive, readily obtainable spectral domain optical coherence tomography parameters were correlated with VA in eyes with current or resolved center-involved diabetic macular edema (DME). Images were evaluated for disorganization of the retinal inner layers (DRIL), cysts, epiretinal membranes, microaneurysms, subretinal fluid, and outer layer disruption/reflectivity. DRIL affecting 50% of the 1-mm central retinal zone was associated with worse VA in all eyes, eyes with current edema, and eyes with resolved edema. Furthermore, early 4-month change in DRIL extent predicted VA change from baseline to 1 year. These data suggest that DRIL is a robust predictor of VA in eyes with present or previous DME and more highly correlated with VA than other widely used measures, such as retinal thickness. If further studies confirm DRIL as a predictive biomarker of future VA, physicians would gain a new tool of substantial clinical and investigative importance that could significantly change the approach to ophthalmic counseling and therapeutic management in patients with diabetes.

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