| Literature DB >> 33364083 |
Tasneem A Arsiwalla1,2, Elisa E Cornish1,3,2, Phuc Vuong Nguyen1, Maria Korsakova1, Haipha Ali1, Nonna Saakova1, Clare L Fraser1, Robyn V Jamieson1,3, John R Grigg1,3.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate cone function deterioration in patients with retinitis pigmentosa (RP) using full field electroretinogram (ffERG), pattern electroretinogram (pERG), and optical coherence tomography (OCT) and their correlation with visual acuity (VA).Entities:
Keywords: OCT; electrophysiology; residual cone function; retinitis pigmenstosa
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33364083 PMCID: PMC7746956 DOI: 10.1167/tvst.9.13.29
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol ISSN: 2164-2591 Impact factor: 3.283
Figure 1.Macular OCT image showing measurement of the EZ layer (a) length of the foveal island remaining (b) thickness measurement at the foveal center.
Changes in Different ffERG and pERG Waveforms
| Mean Value at | Mean Value at | Mean Change | Percentage | Correlation With | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameter | First Visit | Last Visit | Per Year | Change Per Year | Vision |
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| LA 3.0 a wave amplitude | RE 16.61 ± 13.82 µV | 9.70 ± 11.28 µV | 2.76 ± 3.73 µV | 19.37% | NC |
| LE 16.63 ± 14.29 µV | 10.31 ± 10.86 µV | 3.27 ± 4.67 µV | 19.43% | NC | |
| LA 3.0 a wave latency | RE 14.76 ± 3.77 µV | 19.98 ± 6.74 µV | 1.93 ± 2.64 µV | 16.99% | NC |
| LE 14.92 ± 3.75 µV | 19.83 ± 6.20 µV | 1.83 ± 2.57 µV | 17.10% | NC | |
| LA 3.0 b wave amplitude | RE 46.93 ± 46.88 µV | 34.68 ± 36.04 µV | 5.01 ± 8.56 µV | 11.67% | NC |
| LE 52.43 ± 54.64 µV | 39.22 ± 41.78 µV | 5.82 ± 13.27 µV | 11.05% | NC | |
| LA 3.0 b wave latency | RE 31.65 ± 6.88 µV | 36.40 ± 5.80 µV | 1.99 ± 3.80 µV | 8.29% | NC |
| LE 30.76 ± 8.64 µV | 35.70 ± 6.27 µV | 2.01 ± 3.73 µV | 10.74% | NC | |
| 30 Hz flicker amplitude | RE 35.99 ± 34.12 µV | 24.09 ± 25.57 µV | 4.94 ± 8.79 µV | 14.80% | Yes |
| LE 38.28 ± 38.74 µV | 27.39 ± 29.96 µV | 5.25 ± 10.40 µV | 14.37% | Yes | |
| 30 Hz flicker latency | RE 29.86 ± 6.53 µV | 36.03 ± 7.64 µV | 2.21 ± 2.90 µV | 9.93% | Yes |
| LE 30.92 ± 6.13 µV | 36.75 ± 7.22 µV | 2.26 ± 2.79 µV | 8.71% | Yes | |
| pERG P50 amplitude | RE 1.97 ± 1.60 µV | 1.25 ± 0.92 µV | 0.44 ± 0.41 µV | 22% | No |
| LE 2.01 ± 1.44 µV | 1.37 ± 1.76 µV | 0.49 ± 0.49 µV | 24% | No | |
| pERG P50 amplitude | RE 2.57 ± 1.97 µV | 1.69 ± 1.80 µV | 0.55 ± 0.54 µV | 23.51% | Yes |
| LE 2.89 ± 3.10 µV | 1.70 ± 1.97 µV | 0.63 ± 0.54 µV | 23.37% | Yes | |
| pERG N95 amplitude | RE 3.12 ± 2.15 µV | 2.03 ± 1.43 µV | 0.50 ± 0.52 µV | 14.84% | No |
| LE 3.17 ± 2.12 µV | 2.14 ± 2.07 µV | 0.68 ± 0.96 µV | 18.91% | No | |
| pERG N95 amplitude | RE 3.92 ± 2.89 µV | 2.53 ± 2.48 µV | 0.60 ± 0.62 µV | 16.86% | No |
| LE 3.93 ± 3.66 µV | 2.72 ± 2.93 µV | 0.61 ± 0.43 µV | 18.81% | No | |
|
| |||||
| Fused flicker amplitude | RE 11.40 ± 15.33 µV | 5.12 ± 7.32 | 2.63 ± 4.75 µV | 18.78% | Yes |
| LE 13.75 ± 17.86 µV | 6.33 ± 10.34 µV | 3.39 ± 7.05 µV | 18.62% | Yes | |
NC, not calculated.
pERG recorded in 34 patients.
Changes in Different OCT Parameters
| Mean | Mean | Mean | Percentage | Correlation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Value at | Value at | Change | Change | With | |
| Parameter | First Visit | Last Visit | Per Year | Per Year | Vision |
| OCT parameters | |||||
| EZ layer length | RE 3658.98 ± 1569.65 µm | 3463.71 ± 1571.02 µm | 161.22 ± 326.66 µm | 4.3% | Yes |
| LE 3741.64 ± 1611.86 µm | 3545.76 ± 1625.47 µm | 156.43 ± 292.44 µm | 4.34% | Yes | |
| Outer segment thickness | RE 51.52 ± 10.76 µm | 47.31 ± 11.65 µm | 1.93 ± 1.93 µm | 4.05% | NC |
| LE 51.45 ± 10.99 µm | 47.80 ± 10.91 µm | 2.26 ± 2.98 µm | 4.28% | NC |
NC, not calculated.
OCT change measured in 45 patients.
Figure 2.Scatterplot of the percentage change in fused flicker amplitude and the percentage change in vision showing positive correlation between them.
Figure 3.Scatterplot of the percentage change in 30 Hz flicker amplitude and the percentage change in vision showing positive correlation between them.
Figure 4.Scatterplot of the percentage change in 30 Hz flicker latency and the percentage change in vision showing positive correlation between them.
Figure 5.Scatterplot of the percentage change in EZ layer and the percentage change in vision showing positive correlation between them.
Figure 6.Scatterplot of the percentage change in P50 amplitude per year versus the percentage change in EZ layer per year. The black line is the predicted response from generalized estimating equations accounting for intracorrelation between left and right eyes.
Figure 7.Showing the change in EZ layer and pERG 30 degrees P50 amplitude in one patient after 1 year duration.