PURPOSE: To evaluate the use of the Heidelberg retina flowmeter (HRF) in diagnosing retinal ischaemia following macular branch retinal vein occlusion. METHODS: Ten patients with ischaemic macular branch retinal vein occlusion, as determined by strict fluorescein angiographic criteria, were examined with the HRF. Blood flow, blood volume and blood velocity characteristics from areas of ischaemic and non-ischaemic retina were recorded and the results between the normal and ischaemic areas of retina compared with paired t-test analysis. Ten healthy volunteers were similarly examined and acted as a control group. RESULTS: Compared with normal retina the HRF recorded a statistically significant reduction in blood flow within the ischaemic retina in 7 of the 10 study patients. In 2 patients the HRF actually recorded a statistically significant increase in blood flow in the area of ischaemic retina; there was no significant difference in the blood flow recorded in the normal and ischaemic retina in the remaining patient. HRF examination of the control group revealed a significant difference in the blood flow between two areas of apparently normal retina in 3 of the 10 volunteers. CONCLUSION: The HRF is not a reliable tool for diagnosing retinal ischaemia following branch retinal vein occlusion. Our results may suggest that the HRF blood flow recordings are not derived from the retinal circulation alone, but represent the cumulative blood flow through the combined circulations of the retina and choriocapillaris.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the use of the Heidelberg retina flowmeter (HRF) in diagnosing retinal ischaemia following macular branch retinal vein occlusion. METHODS: Ten patients with ischaemic macular branch retinal vein occlusion, as determined by strict fluorescein angiographic criteria, were examined with the HRF. Blood flow, blood volume and blood velocity characteristics from areas of ischaemic and non-ischaemic retina were recorded and the results between the normal and ischaemic areas of retina compared with paired t-test analysis. Ten healthy volunteers were similarly examined and acted as a control group. RESULTS: Compared with normal retina the HRF recorded a statistically significant reduction in blood flow within the ischaemic retina in 7 of the 10 study patients. In 2 patients the HRF actually recorded a statistically significant increase in blood flow in the area of ischaemic retina; there was no significant difference in the blood flow recorded in the normal and ischaemic retina in the remaining patient. HRF examination of the control group revealed a significant difference in the blood flow between two areas of apparently normal retina in 3 of the 10 volunteers. CONCLUSION: The HRF is not a reliable tool for diagnosing retinal ischaemia following branch retinal vein occlusion. Our results may suggest that the HRF blood flow recordings are not derived from the retinal circulation alone, but represent the cumulative blood flow through the combined circulations of the retina and choriocapillaris.
Authors: Amir H Kashani; Chieh-Li Chen; Jin K Gahm; Fang Zheng; Grace M Richter; Philip J Rosenfeld; Yonggang Shi; Ruikang K Wang Journal: Prog Retin Eye Res Date: 2017-07-29 Impact factor: 21.198