4.6 Article

Reduced foveolar choroidal blood flow in eyes with increasing AMD severity

期刊

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
卷 46, 期 3, 页码 1033-1038

出版社

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.04-1050

关键词

-

资金

  1. NEI NIH HHS [EY12769, 5 P30 EY 01583] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE. In an earlier Study, the authors reported that foveolar choroidal blood flow (ChBFlow) decreases in patients with AMD and drusen. To explore further the choroidal circulatory changes in patients with AMD, the relationship between ChBFlow and fundus features associated with increased risk of choroidal neovascularization (CNV) were investigated. METHODS. The study included 26 control eyes of 17 normal subjects and 163 eyes with early AMD characteristics of 123 patients with AMD. The AMD stud), eyes were divided into three groups according to increasing risk for development of CNV: (1) drusen greater than or equal to63 mum, no RPE hyperpigmentary changes in the study eye, and no CNV in the fellow eye; (2) drusen greater than or equal to63 Am, RP hyperpigmentary changes in the study eye, and no CNV in the fellow eye; and (3) eyes with CNV in the fellow eye. Laser Doppler flowmetry was used to assess relative foveolar choroidal blood velocity (ChBVel), volume (ChBVol), and flow (ChBFlow). Differences in the mean circulatory parameters were assessed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) and test of linear trend. RESULTS. Mean ChBVel, ChBVol, and ChBFlow decreased with increased risk for CNV (linear trend, P < 0.05). The lowest circulatory parameters were observed in the eyes with the highest risk for CNV development. Trends for ChBVel and ChBFlow were still significant after adjustment for multiple factors. CONCLUSIONS. There is a systematic decrease in choroidal circulatory parameters with an increase in the severity of AMD features associated with risk for the development of CNV, suggesting a role for ischemia in the development of CNV.

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