Paolo S Silva1, Jerry D Cavallerano2, Jennifer K Sun2, Ahmed Z Soliman2, Lloyd M Aiello2, Lloyd Paul Aiello2. 1. Beetham Eye Institute, Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: paoloantonio.silva@joslin.harvard.edu. 2. Beetham Eye Institute, Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess diabetic retinopathy (DR) as determined by lesions identified using mydriatic ultrawide field imaging (DiSLO200; Optos plc, Scotland, UK) compared with Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) 7-standard field film photography. DESIGN: Prospective comparative study of DiSLO200, ETDRS 7-standard field film photographs, and dilated fundus examination (DFE). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 206 eyes of 103 diabetic patients selected to represent all levels of DR. METHODS: Subjects had DiSLO200, ETDRS 7-standard field film photographs, and DFE. Images were graded for severity and distribution of DR lesions. Discrepancies were adjudicated, and images were compared side by side. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Distribution of hemorrhage and/or microaneurysm (H/Ma), venous beading (VB), intraretinal microvascular abnormality (IRMA), and new vessels elsewhere (NVE). Kappa (κ) and weighted κ statistics for agreement. RESULTS: The distribution of DR severity by ETDRS 7-standard field film photographs was no DR 12.5%; nonproliferative DR mild 22.5%, moderate 30%, and severe/very severe 8%; and proliferative DR 27%. Diabetic retinopathy severity between DiSLO200 and ETDRS film photographs matched in 80% of eyes (weighted κ = 0.74,κ = 0.84) and was within 1 level in 94.5% of eyes. DiSLO200 and DFE matched in 58.8% of eyes (weighted κ = 0.69,κ = 0.47) and were within 1 level in 91.2% of eyes. Forty eyes (20%) had DR severity discrepancies between DiSLO200 and ETDRS film photographs. The retinal lesions causing discrepancies were H/Ma 52%, IRMA 26%, NVE 17%, and VB 4%. Approximately one-third of H/Ma, IRMA, and NVE were predominantly outside ETDRS fields. Lesions identified on DiSLO200 but not ETDRS film photographs suggested a more severe DR level in 10% of eyes. Distribution in the temporal, superotemporal, inferotemporal, superonasal, and inferonasal fields was 77%, 72%, 61%, 65%, and 59% for H/Ma, respectively (P<0.0001); 22%, 24%, 21%, 28%, and 22% for VB, respectively (P = 0.009); 52%, 40%, 29%, 47%, and 36% for IRMA, respectively (P<0.0001), and 8%, 4%, 4%, 8%, and 5% for NVE, respectively (P = 0.03). All lesions were more frequent in the temporal fields compared with the nasal fields (P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: DiSLO200 images had substantial agreement with ETDRS film photographs and DFE in determining DR severity. On the basis of DiSLO200 images, significant nonuniform distribution of DR lesions was evident across the retina. The additional peripheral lesions identified by DiSLO200 in this cohort suggested a more severe assessment of DR in 10% of eyes than was suggested by the lesions within the ETDRS fields. However, the implications of peripheral lesions on DR progression within a specific ETDRS severity level over time are unknown and need to be evaluated prospectively.
OBJECTIVE: To assess diabetic retinopathy (DR) as determined by lesions identified using mydriatic ultrawide field imaging (DiSLO200; Optos plc, Scotland, UK) compared with Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) 7-standard field film photography. DESIGN: Prospective comparative study of DiSLO200, ETDRS 7-standard field film photographs, and dilated fundus examination (DFE). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 206 eyes of 103 diabeticpatients selected to represent all levels of DR. METHODS: Subjects had DiSLO200, ETDRS 7-standard field film photographs, and DFE. Images were graded for severity and distribution of DR lesions. Discrepancies were adjudicated, and images were compared side by side. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Distribution of hemorrhage and/or microaneurysm (H/Ma), venous beading (VB), intraretinal microvascular abnormality (IRMA), and new vessels elsewhere (NVE). Kappa (κ) and weighted κ statistics for agreement. RESULTS: The distribution of DR severity by ETDRS 7-standard field film photographs was no DR 12.5%; nonproliferative DR mild 22.5%, moderate 30%, and severe/very severe 8%; and proliferative DR 27%. Diabetic retinopathy severity between DiSLO200 and ETDRS film photographs matched in 80% of eyes (weighted κ = 0.74,κ = 0.84) and was within 1 level in 94.5% of eyes. DiSLO200 and DFE matched in 58.8% of eyes (weighted κ = 0.69,κ = 0.47) and were within 1 level in 91.2% of eyes. Forty eyes (20%) had DR severity discrepancies between DiSLO200 and ETDRS film photographs. The retinal lesions causing discrepancies were H/Ma 52%, IRMA 26%, NVE 17%, and VB 4%. Approximately one-third of H/Ma, IRMA, and NVE were predominantly outside ETDRS fields. Lesions identified on DiSLO200 but not ETDRS film photographs suggested a more severe DR level in 10% of eyes. Distribution in the temporal, superotemporal, inferotemporal, superonasal, and inferonasal fields was 77%, 72%, 61%, 65%, and 59% for H/Ma, respectively (P<0.0001); 22%, 24%, 21%, 28%, and 22% for VB, respectively (P = 0.009); 52%, 40%, 29%, 47%, and 36% for IRMA, respectively (P<0.0001), and 8%, 4%, 4%, 8%, and 5% for NVE, respectively (P = 0.03). All lesions were more frequent in the temporal fields compared with the nasal fields (P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: DiSLO200 images had substantial agreement with ETDRS film photographs and DFE in determining DR severity. On the basis of DiSLO200 images, significant nonuniform distribution of DR lesions was evident across the retina. The additional peripheral lesions identified by DiSLO200 in this cohort suggested a more severe assessment of DR in 10% of eyes than was suggested by the lesions within the ETDRS fields. However, the implications of peripheral lesions on DR progression within a specific ETDRS severity level over time are unknown and need to be evaluated prospectively.
Authors: Gina Yu; Michael T Aaberg; Tapan P Patel; Rahul S Iyengar; Corey Powell; Annie Tran; Caitlin Miranda; Emma Young; Katarina Demetriou; Laxmi Devisetty; Yannis M Paulus Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Giselle Lynch; Jorge S Andrade Romo; Rachel Linderman; Brian D Krawitz; Shelley Mo; Amir Zakik; Joseph Carroll; Richard B Rosen; Toco Y P Chui Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2018-11-05 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Francesco Pichi; Scott D Smith; Emad B Abboud; Piergiorgio Neri; Elizabeth Woodstock; Steven Hay; Emily Levine; Caroline R Baumal Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2020-05-30 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Michelle Y T Yip; Gilbert Lim; Zhan Wei Lim; Quang D Nguyen; Crystal C Y Chong; Marco Yu; Valentina Bellemo; Yuchen Xie; Xin Qi Lee; Haslina Hamzah; Jinyi Ho; Tien-En Tan; Charumathi Sabanayagam; Andrzej Grzybowski; Gavin S W Tan; Wynne Hsu; Mong Li Lee; Tien Yin Wong; Daniel S W Ting Journal: NPJ Digit Med Date: 2020-03-23
Authors: Joseph D Malone; Mohamed T El-Haddad; Ivan Bozic; Logan A Tye; Lucas Majeau; Nicolas Godbout; Andrew M Rollins; Caroline Boudoux; Karen M Joos; Shriji N Patel; Yuankai K Tao Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2016-12-12 Impact factor: 3.732