BACKGROUND: Multifocal visual evoked potentials (mfVEP) measure local response amplitude and latency in the field of vision. OBJECTIVE: To compare the sensitivity of mfVEP, Humphrey visual field (HVF) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) in detecting visual abnormality in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. METHODS: mfVEP, HVF, and OCT (retinal nerve fiber layer [RNFL]) were performed in 47 MS-ON eyes (last optic neuritis [ON] attack >or=6 months prior) and 65 MS-no-ON eyes without ON history. Criteria to define an eye as abnormal were: (1) mfVEP amplitude/latency - either amplitude or latency probability plots meeting cluster criteria with 95% specificity; (2) mfVEP amplitude or latency alone (specificity: 97% and 98%, respectively); and (3) HVF and OCT, mean deviation and RNFL thickness meeting p < 0.05, respectively. RESULTS: MfVEP (amplitude/latency) identified more abnormality in MS-ON eyes (89%) than HVF (72%), OCT (62%), mfVEP amplitude (66%) or latency (67%) alone. Eighteen percent of MS-no-ON eyes were abnormal for both mfVEP (amplitude/latency) and HVF compared with 8% with OCT. Agreement between tests ranged from 60% to 79%. mfVEP (amplitude/latency) categorized an additional 15% of MS-ON eyes as abnormal compared with HVF and OCT combined. CONCLUSIONS: mfVEP, which detects both demyelination (increased latency) and neural degeneration (reduced amplitude), revealed more abnormality than HVF or OCT in MS patients.
BACKGROUND: Multifocal visual evoked potentials (mfVEP) measure local response amplitude and latency in the field of vision. OBJECTIVE: To compare the sensitivity of mfVEP, Humphrey visual field (HVF) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) in detecting visual abnormality in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. METHODS: mfVEP, HVF, and OCT (retinal nerve fiber layer [RNFL]) were performed in 47 MS-ON eyes (last optic neuritis [ON] attack >or=6 months prior) and 65 MS-no-ON eyes without ON history. Criteria to define an eye as abnormal were: (1) mfVEP amplitude/latency - either amplitude or latency probability plots meeting cluster criteria with 95% specificity; (2) mfVEP amplitude or latency alone (specificity: 97% and 98%, respectively); and (3) HVF and OCT, mean deviation and RNFL thickness meeting p < 0.05, respectively. RESULTS: MfVEP (amplitude/latency) identified more abnormality in MS-ON eyes (89%) than HVF (72%), OCT (62%), mfVEP amplitude (66%) or latency (67%) alone. Eighteen percent of MS-no-ON eyes were abnormal for both mfVEP (amplitude/latency) and HVF compared with 8% with OCT. Agreement between tests ranged from 60% to 79%. mfVEP (amplitude/latency) categorized an additional 15% of MS-ON eyes as abnormal compared with HVF and OCT combined. CONCLUSIONS: mfVEP, which detects both demyelination (increased latency) and neural degeneration (reduced amplitude), revealed more abnormality than HVF or OCT in MS patients.
Authors: Elliot M Frohman; James G Fujimoto; Teresa C Frohman; Peter A Calabresi; Gary Cutter; Laura J Balcer Journal: Nat Clin Pract Neurol Date: 2008-12
Authors: Alexander Klistorner; H Arvind; T Nguyen; R Garrick; M Paine; S Graham; J O'Day; C Yiannikas Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2008-09-09 Impact factor: 2.379
Authors: Christopher Kai-Shun Leung; Carol Yim-Lui Cheung; Robert N Weinreb; Quanliang Qiu; Shu Liu; Haitao Li; Guihua Xu; Ning Fan; Lina Huang; Chi-Pui Pang; Dennis Shun Chiu Lam Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2009-05-22 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: R M Dachsel; R Dachsel; S Domke; T Groß; O Schubert; L Kotrini; K Ladegast; J Vogel; T Jordan; S Zawade Journal: Nervenarzt Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 1.214
Authors: Zane S Schnurman; Teresa C Frohman; Shin C Beh; Darrel Conger; Amy Conger; Shiv Saidha; Steven Galetta; Peter A Calabresi; Ari J Green; Laura J Balcer; Elliot M Frohman Journal: Neurology Date: 2014-04-30 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Santiago Ortiz-Perez; Magí Andorra; Bernardo Sanchez-Dalmau; Rubén Torres-Torres; David Calbet; Erika J Lampert; Salut Alba-Arbalat; Ana M Guerrero-Zamora; Irati Zubizarreta; Nuria Sola-Valls; Sara Llufriu; María Sepúlveda; Albert Saiz; Pablo Villoslada; Elena H Martinez-Lapiscina Journal: J Neurol Date: 2016-02-09 Impact factor: 4.849