Veena C Karanam1, Leonardo Tamariz2, Hatim Batawi3, Jianhua Wang3, Anat Galor4. 1. Miami VA, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Miami, FL, USA. 2. Miami VA, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Miami, FL, USA; Division of Population Health and Computational Medicine, USA. 3. Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, Miller School of Medicine at the University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA. 4. Miami VA, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Miami, FL, USA; Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, Miller School of Medicine at the University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA. Electronic address: agalor@med.miami.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Our aim was to correlate cardiovascular risk factor estimation with bulbar conjunctival blood flow metrics as measured through Functional Slit Lamp Biomicroscopy (FSLB). METHODS: Cross-sectional study of individuals with otherwise healthy eyelid and corneal anatomy recruited from the Miami Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare System eye clinic. We measured conjunctival microvascular hemodynamics by mounting a camera on a slit lamp and cardiovascular risk using the Framingham risk score. Our main outcome measures were correlations between conjunctival vessel parameters (axial and cross-sectional blood flow velocity, blood flow rate) and Framingham score. RESULTS: We included 84 patients who underwent FSLB. The mean age was 60 years, the majority were male (88%) and approximately half the patients were black (54%). Mean vessel diameter was similar between all Framingham score categories. Axial and cross-sectional blood flow velocities and blood flow rate were lower in individuals with higher Framingham risk score. Specifically, mean cross-sectional blood flow velocity in individuals with a low Framingham risk score was 0.37 ± 0.0.9 mm/s, with an intermediate score was 0.30 ± 0.09 mm/s, and with a high score was 0.29 ± 0.10 mm/s, p = 0.04. Mean blood flow rate in individuals with a low Framingham risk score was 133.4 ± 59.6 pl/s, with an intermediate score was 123.6 ± 39.3 pl/s, and with a high score was 121.9 ± 52.6 pl/s, p = 0.04. The beta coefficient of the blood flow rate for change in Framingham score was -0.73; 95% CI-1.34-0.13, p = 0.02, adjusted for race. CONCLUSION: FSLB correlates with cardiovascular risk estimation. Future studies should evaluate if FSLB can predict cardiovascular outcomes.
PURPOSE: Our aim was to correlate cardiovascular risk factor estimation with bulbar conjunctival blood flow metrics as measured through Functional Slit Lamp Biomicroscopy (FSLB). METHODS: Cross-sectional study of individuals with otherwise healthy eyelid and corneal anatomy recruited from the Miami Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare System eye clinic. We measured conjunctival microvascular hemodynamics by mounting a camera on a slit lamp and cardiovascular risk using the Framingham risk score. Our main outcome measures were correlations between conjunctival vessel parameters (axial and cross-sectional blood flow velocity, blood flow rate) and Framingham score. RESULTS: We included 84 patients who underwent FSLB. The mean age was 60 years, the majority were male (88%) and approximately half the patients were black (54%). Mean vessel diameter was similar between all Framingham score categories. Axial and cross-sectional blood flow velocities and blood flow rate were lower in individuals with higher Framingham risk score. Specifically, mean cross-sectional blood flow velocity in individuals with a low Framingham risk score was 0.37 ± 0.0.9 mm/s, with an intermediate score was 0.30 ± 0.09 mm/s, and with a high score was 0.29 ± 0.10 mm/s, p = 0.04. Mean blood flow rate in individuals with a low Framingham risk score was 133.4 ± 59.6 pl/s, with an intermediate score was 123.6 ± 39.3 pl/s, and with a high score was 121.9 ± 52.6 pl/s, p = 0.04. The beta coefficient of the blood flow rate for change in Framingham score was -0.73; 95% CI-1.34-0.13, p = 0.02, adjusted for race. CONCLUSION: FSLB correlates with cardiovascular risk estimation. Future studies should evaluate if FSLB can predict cardiovascular outcomes.
Authors: Christopher G Owen; Richard S B Newsom; Alicja R Rudnicka; Tim J Ellis; E Geoffrey Woodward Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Wan Chen; Hatim Ismail M Batawi; Jimmy R Alava; Anat Galor; Jin Yuan; Constantine D Sarantopoulos; Allison L McClellan; William J Feuer; Roy C Levitt; Jianhua Wang Journal: Ocul Surf Date: 2016-12-29 Impact factor: 5.033
Authors: Lu Wang; Tien Y Wong; A Richey Sharrett; Ronald Klein; Aaron R Folsom; Michael Jerosch-Herold Journal: Hypertension Date: 2007-11-12 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Maziyar M Khansari; Justin Wanek; Anthony E Felder; Nicole Camardo; Mahnaz Shahidi Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2015-10-06 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Senthil Selvaraj; Frank G Aguilar; Eva E Martinez; Lauren Beussink; Kwang-Youn A Kim; Jie Peng; Laura Rasmussen-Torvik; Jin Sha; Marguerite R Irvin; C Charles Gu; Cora E Lewis; Steven C Hunt; Donna K Arnett; Sanjiv J Shah Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2014-04-29 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Aamer Sandoo; Neil Chanchlani; James Hodson; Jacqueline P Smith; Karen M Douglas; George D Kitas Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2013 Impact factor: 5.156