Graham E Quinn1,2,3, Gui-Shuang Ying3, Wei Pan3, Agnieshka Baumritter1,2, Ebenezer Daniel3. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 2. Division of Ophthalmology, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Center for Preventive Ophthalmology and Biostatistics, Scheie Eye Institute, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Abstract
Importance: Telemedicine in retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) has the potential for delivering timely care to premature infants at risk for serious ROP. Objective: To describe the characteristics of eyes at risk for ROP to provide insights into what types of ROP are most easily detected early by image grading. Design, Setting, and Participants: Secondary analysis of eyes with referral-warranted (RW) ROP (stage 3 ROP, zone I ROP, plus disease) on diagnostic examination from the Telemedicine Approaches to Evaluating Acute-Phase Retinopathy of Prematurity (e-ROP) study was conducted from May 1, 2011, to October 31, 2013, in 1257 premature infants with birth weights less than 1251 g in 13 neonatal units in North America. Data analysis was performed between February 1, 2016, and June 5, 2017. Interventions: Serial imaging sessions with concurrent diagnostic examinations for ROP. Main Outcomes and Measures: Time of detecting RW-ROP on image evaluation compared with clinical examination. Results: In the e-ROP study, 246 infants (492 eyes) were included in the analysis; 138 (56.1%) were male. A total of 447 eyes had RW-ROP on diagnostic examination. Image grading in 123 infants (mean [SD] gestational age, 24.8 [1.4] weeks) detected RW-ROP earlier than diagnostic examination (early) in 191 (42.7%) eyes by about 15 days and detected RW-ROP in 123 infants (mean [SD] gestational age, 24.6 [1.5] weeks) at the same time (same) in 200 (44.7%) eyes. Most of the early eyes (153 [80.1%]) interpreted as being RW-ROP positive on imaging evaluation agreed with examination findings when the examination subsequently documented RW-ROP. At the sessions in which RW-ROP was first found by examination, stage 3 or more in 123 infants (mean [SD] gestational age, 24.8 [1.4] weeks) ROP was noted earlier on image evaluation in 151 of 191 early eyes (79.1%) and in 172 of 200 of same eyes (86.0%) (P = .08); the presence of zone I ROP was detected in 57 of 191 (29.8%) early eyes vs 64 of 200 (32.0%) same eyes (P = .90); and plus disease was noted in 30 of 191 (15.7%) early eyes and 45 of 200 (22.5%) same eyes (P = .08). Conclusions and Relevance: In both early and same eyes, zone I and/or stage 3 ROP determined a significant proportion of RW-ROP; plus disease played a relatively minor role. In most early RW-ROP eyes, the findings were consistent with clinical examination and/or image grading at the next session. Because ROP telemedicine is used more widely, development of standard approaches and protocols is essential.
Importance: Telemedicine in retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) has the potential for delivering timely care to premature infants at risk for serious ROP. Objective: To describe the characteristics of eyes at risk for ROP to provide insights into what types of ROP are most easily detected early by image grading. Design, Setting, and Participants: Secondary analysis of eyes with referral-warranted (RW) ROP (stage 3 ROP, zone I ROP, plus disease) on diagnostic examination from the Telemedicine Approaches to Evaluating Acute-Phase Retinopathy of Prematurity (e-ROP) study was conducted from May 1, 2011, to October 31, 2013, in 1257 premature infants with birth weights less than 1251 g in 13 neonatal units in North America. Data analysis was performed between February 1, 2016, and June 5, 2017. Interventions: Serial imaging sessions with concurrent diagnostic examinations for ROP. Main Outcomes and Measures: Time of detecting RW-ROP on image evaluation compared with clinical examination. Results: In the e-ROP study, 246 infants (492 eyes) were included in the analysis; 138 (56.1%) were male. A total of 447 eyes had RW-ROP on diagnostic examination. Image grading in 123 infants (mean [SD] gestational age, 24.8 [1.4] weeks) detected RW-ROP earlier than diagnostic examination (early) in 191 (42.7%) eyes by about 15 days and detected RW-ROP in 123 infants (mean [SD] gestational age, 24.6 [1.5] weeks) at the same time (same) in 200 (44.7%) eyes. Most of the early eyes (153 [80.1%]) interpreted as being RW-ROP positive on imaging evaluation agreed with examination findings when the examination subsequently documented RW-ROP. At the sessions in which RW-ROP was first found by examination, stage 3 or more in 123 infants (mean [SD] gestational age, 24.8 [1.4] weeks) ROP was noted earlier on image evaluation in 151 of 191 early eyes (79.1%) and in 172 of 200 of same eyes (86.0%) (P = .08); the presence of zone I ROP was detected in 57 of 191 (29.8%) early eyes vs 64 of 200 (32.0%) same eyes (P = .90); and plus disease was noted in 30 of 191 (15.7%) early eyes and 45 of 200 (22.5%) same eyes (P = .08). Conclusions and Relevance: In both early and same eyes, zone I and/or stage 3 ROP determined a significant proportion of RW-ROP; plus disease played a relatively minor role. In most early RW-ROP eyes, the findings were consistent with clinical examination and/or image grading at the next session. Because ROP telemedicine is used more widely, development of standard approaches and protocols is essential.
Authors: Andreas Gschließer; Eva Stifter; Thomas Neumayer; Elisabeth Moser; Andrea Papp; Niklas Pircher; Guido Dorner; Stefan Egger; Nenad Vukojevic; Isabel Oberacher-Velten; Ursula Schmidt-Erfurth Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2015-05-21 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Yehuda Handelsman; Zachary T Bloomgarden; George Grunberger; Guillermo Umpierrez; Robert S Zimmerman; Timothy S Bailey; Lawrence Blonde; George A Bray; A Jay Cohen; Samuel Dagogo-Jack; Jaime A Davidson; Daniel Einhorn; Om P Ganda; Alan J Garber; W Timothy Garvey; Robert R Henry; Irl B Hirsch; Edward S Horton; Daniel L Hurley; Paul S Jellinger; Lois Jovanovič; Harold E Lebovitz; Derek LeRoith; Philip Levy; Janet B McGill; Jeffrey I Mechanick; Jorge H Mestman; Etie S Moghissi; Eric A Orzeck; Rachel Pessah-Pollack; Paul D Rosenblit; Aaron I Vinik; Kathleen Wyne; Farhad Zangeneh Journal: Endocr Pract Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: Ebenezer Daniel; Graham E Quinn; P Lloyd Hildebrand; Anna Ells; G Baker Hubbard; Antonio Capone; E Revell Martin; Candace P Ostroff; Eli Smith; Maxwell Pistilli; Gui-Shuang Ying Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: J Peter Campbell; Michael C Ryan; Emily Lore; Peng Tian; Susan Ostmo; Karyn Jonas; R V Paul Chan; Michael F Chiang Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2016-05-27 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Gui-Shuang Ying; Graham E Quinn; Kelly C Wade; Michael X Repka; Agnieshka Baumritter; Ebenezer Daniel Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Graham E Quinn; Gui-shuang Ying; Ebenezer Daniel; P Lloyd Hildebrand; Anna Ells; Agnieshka Baumritter; Alex R Kemper; Eleanor B Schron; Kelly Wade Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Graham E Quinn; Anna Ells; Antonio Capone; G Baker Hubbard; Ebenezer Daniel; P Lloyd Hildebrand; Gui-Shuang Ying Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 7.389