BACKGROUND: The Multicenter Trial of Cryotherapy for Retinopathy of Prematurity (CRYO-ROP) demonstrated the efficacy of treatment for threshold ROP and indicated the need for worldwide ROP screening. Previous guidelines for ROP screening have been largely based on clinical impression; we can now develop evidence-based screening recommendations. OBJECTIVE: To define the appropriate ages and retinal ophthalmoscopic signs that determine when to commence and conclude acute phase ROP screening. DESIGN: Analysis of data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials: CRYO-ROP (January 1, 1986, to November 30, 1987) and Light Reduction in ROP (LIGHT-ROP) (July 1, 1995, to March 31, 1997). SETTING: Neonatal intensive care units in 23 study centers in the United States for CRYO-ROP and 3 centers for LIGHT-ROP. PATIENTS: Eyes were examined sequentially in 4099 infants with birth weight less than 1251 g (CRYO-ROP study) and in 361 infants with birth weight less than 1251 g and gestational age less than 31 weeks (LIGHT-ROP study). RESULTS: In 99% of infants, retinal conditions indicating a risk of poor outcome were not observed before 31 weeks' postmenstrual age or 4 weeks' chronologic age. Signs indicating that the risk of visual loss from ROP was minimal or had passed were the infant's attainment of 45 weeks' postmenstrual age without the development of prethreshold ROP or worse, progression of retinal vascularization into zone III without previous zone II ROP, and full vascularization. CONCLUSIONS: The initial eye examination should be conducted by 31 weeks' postmenstrual age or 4 weeks' chronologic age, whichever is later. Acute phase ROP screening can be discontinued when any of the 3 signs is present, indicating that the risk of visual loss from ROP is minimal or passed.
BACKGROUND: The Multicenter Trial of Cryotherapy for Retinopathy of Prematurity (CRYO-ROP) demonstrated the efficacy of treatment for threshold ROP and indicated the need for worldwide ROP screening. Previous guidelines for ROP screening have been largely based on clinical impression; we can now develop evidence-based screening recommendations. OBJECTIVE: To define the appropriate ages and retinal ophthalmoscopic signs that determine when to commence and conclude acute phase ROP screening. DESIGN: Analysis of data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials: CRYO-ROP (January 1, 1986, to November 30, 1987) and Light Reduction in ROP (LIGHT-ROP) (July 1, 1995, to March 31, 1997). SETTING: Neonatal intensive care units in 23 study centers in the United States for CRYO-ROP and 3 centers for LIGHT-ROP. PATIENTS: Eyes were examined sequentially in 4099 infants with birth weight less than 1251 g (CRYO-ROP study) and in 361 infants with birth weight less than 1251 g and gestational age less than 31 weeks (LIGHT-ROP study). RESULTS: In 99% of infants, retinal conditions indicating a risk of poor outcome were not observed before 31 weeks' postmenstrual age or 4 weeks' chronologic age. Signs indicating that the risk of visual loss from ROP was minimal or had passed were the infant's attainment of 45 weeks' postmenstrual age without the development of prethreshold ROP or worse, progression of retinal vascularization into zone III without previous zone II ROP, and full vascularization. CONCLUSIONS: The initial eye examination should be conducted by 31 weeks' postmenstrual age or 4 weeks' chronologic age, whichever is later. Acute phase ROP screening can be discontinued when any of the 3 signs is present, indicating that the risk of visual loss from ROP is minimal or passed.
Authors: Michael F Chiang; Michele Melia; Angela N Buffenn; Scott R Lambert; Franco M Recchia; Jennifer L Simpson; Michael B Yang Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-04-27 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Preeti J Thyparampil; Yangseon Park; M E Martinez-Perez; Thomas C Lee; David J Weissgold; Audina M Berrocal; R V Paul Chan; John T Flynn; Michael F Chiang Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Chace Moleta; J Peter Campbell; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; R V Paul Chan; Susan Ostmo; Karyn Jonas; Michael F Chiang Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2017-01-11 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Esra Ataer-Cansizoglu; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Susan Ostmo; Karyn Jonas; R V Paul Chan; J Peter Campbell; Michael F Chiang; Deniz Erdogmus Journal: Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Date: 2016-08
Authors: Rony Gelman; Lei Jiang; Yunling E Du; M Elena Martinez-Perez; John T Flynn; Michael F Chiang Journal: J AAPOS Date: 2007-10-29 Impact factor: 1.220
Authors: Leslie M Pierce; Edward L Raab; Ian R Holzman; Robin N Ginsburg; Scott E Brodie; Annemarie Stroustrup Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Joo-Yeon Lee; Yunling E Du; Osode Coki; John T Flynn; Justin Starren; Michael F Chiang Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2009-09-23 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Dale L Phelps; Kristi L Watterberg; Tracy L Nolen; Carol A Cole; C Michael Cotten; William Oh; Brenda B Poindexter; Kristin M Zaterka-Baxter; Abhik Das; Conra Backstrom Lacy; Ann Marie Scorsone; Michele C Walsh; Edward F Bell; Kathleen A Kennedy; Kurt Schibler; Gregory M Sokol; Matthew M Laughon; Satyanarayana Lakshminrusimha; William E Truog; Meena Garg; Waldemar A Carlo; Abbot R Laptook; Krisa P Van Meurs; David P Carlton; Amanda Graf; Sara B DeMauro; Luc P Brion; Seetha Shankaran; Faruk H Orge; Richard J Olson; Helen Mintz-Hittner; Michael B Yang; Kathryn M Haider; David K Wallace; Mina Chung; Denise Hug; Irena Tsui; Martin S Cogen; John P Donahue; Michael Gaynon; Amy K Hutchinson; Don L Bremer; Graham Quinn; Yu-Guang He; William R Lucas; Timothy W Winter; Stephen D Kicklighter; Kartik Kumar; Patricia R Chess; Tarah T Colaizy; Anna Marie Hibbs; Namasivayam Ambalavanan; Heidi M Harmon; Elisabeth C McGowan; Rosemary D Higgins Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-10-23 Impact factor: 56.272