Klemens Fondi1, Gerold C Aschinger2, Ahmed M Bata1, Piotr A Wozniak1, Liang Liao1, Gerald Seidel3, Veronika Doblhoff-Dier2, Doreen Schmidl4, Gerhard Garhöfer1, René M Werkmeister1, Leopold Schmetterer4. 1. Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 2. Center for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria 3Institute of Applied Physics, Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria. 4. Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria 2Center for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare retinal vessel calibers extracted from phase-sensitive optical coherence tomography (OCT) images with vessel calibers as obtained from the Retinal Vessel Analyzer (RVA). METHODS: Data from previously published studies in 13 healthy subjects breathing room air (n = 214 vessels) and 7 subjects breathing 100% oxygen (n = 101 vessels) were used. Vessel calibers from OCT phase images were measured vertically along the optical axis by three independent graders. The data from RVA fundus images were corrected for magnification to obtain absolute values. RESULTS: The average vessel diameter as obtained from OCT images during normoxia was lower than from RVA images (83.8 ± 28.2 μm versus 86.6 ± 28.0 μm, P < 0.001). The same phenomenon was observed during 100% oxygen breathing (OCT: 81.0 ± 22.4 μm, RVA: 85.5 ± 26.0 μm; P = 0.001). Although the agreement between the two methods was generally high, the difference in individual vessels could be as high as 40%. These differences were neither dependent on absolute vessel size nor preferably found in specific subjects. Interobserver differences between OCT evaluators were much lower than differences between the techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Extracting vessel calibers from OCT phase images may be an attractive approach to overcome some of the problems associated with fundus imaging. The source of differences in vessel caliber between the two methods remains to be investigated. In addition, it remains unclear whether OCT-based vessel caliber measurement is superior to fundus camera-based imaging in risk stratification for systemic or ocular disease. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00914407, NCT02531399.).
PURPOSE: To compare retinal vessel calibers extracted from phase-sensitive optical coherence tomography (OCT) images with vessel calibers as obtained from the Retinal Vessel Analyzer (RVA). METHODS: Data from previously published studies in 13 healthy subjects breathing room air (n = 214 vessels) and 7 subjects breathing 100% oxygen (n = 101 vessels) were used. Vessel calibers from OCT phase images were measured vertically along the optical axis by three independent graders. The data from RVA fundus images were corrected for magnification to obtain absolute values. RESULTS: The average vessel diameter as obtained from OCT images during normoxia was lower than from RVA images (83.8 ± 28.2 μm versus 86.6 ± 28.0 μm, P < 0.001). The same phenomenon was observed during 100% oxygen breathing (OCT: 81.0 ± 22.4 μm, RVA: 85.5 ± 26.0 μm; P = 0.001). Although the agreement between the two methods was generally high, the difference in individual vessels could be as high as 40%. These differences were neither dependent on absolute vessel size nor preferably found in specific subjects. Interobserver differences between OCT evaluators were much lower than differences between the techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Extracting vessel calibers from OCT phase images may be an attractive approach to overcome some of the problems associated with fundus imaging. The source of differences in vessel caliber between the two methods remains to be investigated. In addition, it remains unclear whether OCT-based vessel caliber measurement is superior to fundus camera-based imaging in risk stratification for systemic or ocular disease. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00914407, NCT02531399.).
Authors: Klemens Fondi; Piotr A Wozniak; Kinga Howorka; Ahmed M Bata; Gerold C Aschinger; Alina Popa-Cherecheanu; Katarzyna J Witkowska; Anton Hommer; Doreen Schmidl; René M Werkmeister; Gerhard Garhöfer; Leopold Schmetterer Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2017-05-25 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Doreen Schmidl; Kinga Howorka; Stephan Szegedi; Kristina Stjepanek; Stefan Puchner; Ahmed Bata; Ulrike Scheschy; Gerold Aschinger; René M Werkmeister; Leopold Schmetterer; Gerhard Garhofer Journal: Mol Vis Date: 2020-04-24 Impact factor: 2.367
Authors: Gerhard Garhöfer; Ahmed M Bata; Alina Popa-Cherecheanu; Anton Hommer; Clemens Vass; Hemma Resch; Doreen Schmidl; René M Werkmeister; Leopold Schmetterer Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-09-05 Impact factor: 6.208
Authors: Stefan Puchner; Doreen Schmidl; Laurin Ginner; Marco Augustin; Rainer Leitgeb; Stephan Szegedi; Kristina Stjepanek; Nikolaus Hommer; Martin Kallab; René Marcel Werkmeister; Leopold Schmetterer; Gerhard Garhofer Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2020-02-07 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Stephan Szegedi; Peter Dal-Bianco; Elisabeth Stögmann; Tatjana Traub-Weidinger; Michael Rainer; Andreas Masching; Doreen Schmidl; René M Werkmeister; Jacqueline Chua; Leopold Schmetterer; Gerhard Garhöfer Journal: Acta Ophthalmol Date: 2020-03-25 Impact factor: 3.761
Authors: Stephan Szegedi; Nikolaus Hommer; Martin Kallab; Stefan Puchner; Doreen Schmidl; René M Werkmeister; Gerhard Garhöfer; Leopold Schmetterer Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2020-06-25 Impact factor: 3.283