| Literature DB >> 33372979 |
Damon Wong1,2,3, Jacqueline Chua3,4, Emily Lin3, Bingyao Tan1,2,3, Xinwen Yao1,2,3, Rachel Chong3, Chelvin Sng3,5, Amanda Lau3, Rahat Husain3, Tin Aung3,4,6, Leopold Schmetterer1,3,7,8,9,10.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the focal structure-function associations among visual field (VF) loss, optical coherence tomography angiography (OCT-A) vascular measurements, and optical coherence tomography (OCT) structural measurements in glaucoma.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33372979 PMCID: PMC7774057 DOI: 10.1167/iovs.61.14.33
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci ISSN: 0146-0404 Impact factor: 4.799
Figure 1.OCT-A image processing. (A) OCT-A images of the superficial plexus were acquired using a 6 × 6-mm optic nerve head protocol. (B) Major vessels were detected using a Hessian-based filter followed by adaptive thresholding. These major vessels were excluded from the OCT-A image to remove the contributions from the larger vessels. (C) After large vessel removal, global thresholding was applied to the OCT-A image to generate a binarized capillary map.
Figure 2.Illustration of the mapping protocol used in this study. (A) Using the locations of the optic nerve head (asterisk) and fovea (cross) as reference points, the individual nerve fiber trajectories were traced using the fiber trajectory tracing model., (B) The tracings were then transferred onto the OCT-A image acquired with the 6 × 6-mm optic nerve head protocol. For each VF test point, the corresponding 95% limits of the fiber trajectories were used to demarcate a region of interest for calculation of the focal capillary density metrics. (C, D) An example of the mapping for the two VF points (A, red; B, blue) is shown. Mappings for all of the VF points with the corresponding nerve fiber trajectories are provided in the Supplementary Material.
Figure 3.Focal relationship among VF loss, FCD, and FNL thickness. OCT (A) and OCT-A (B) images of the left eye (OS) of a subject are shown. (C) FCD region (red zone) on the OCT-A image corresponding to the VF defect at the test position indicated in (D). The region was defined by the nerve fiber trajectories. Decreased capillary density was observed within the FCD region. FNL thickness was defined by the arc (blue) on the circumpapillary RNFL (dotted cyan circle) bounded by the same nerve fiber trajectories as FCD. The extracted RNFL thickness map (E) and profile (F) show corresponding RNFL thinning (white arrows).
Demographic Characteristics of the Study Subjects (119 Eyes, 86 Subjects)
| Characteristic | Value |
|---|---|
| Age (y) | 65.6 ± 12.2 |
| Gender (female:male) | 25:61 |
| Ethnicity | Chinese |
| Refractive error (D) | –1.14 ± 1.95 |
| VF MD (dB) | –3.56 ± 3.01 |
| Intraocular pressure (mm Hg) | 14.38 ± 2.75 |
| Global RNFL thickness (µm) | 74.02 ± 9.56 |
| Global capillary density (%) | 35.45 ± 7.77 |
| Disc–fovea angle | 9.52 ± 3.89 |
| Disc–fovea distance | 4.47 ± 0.26 |
*Angle between the optic disc center and the foveola, with respect to the horizontal.
Distance between the optic disc center and the foveola.
Multivariate Mixed-Effects Model for Global Factors Associated with VF MD
| Factor | Regression Coefficient | 95% Confidence Interval |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 0.01 ± 0.02 | –0.04 to 0.06 | 0.791 |
| Gender (female) | 0.35 ± 0.60 | –0.82 to 1.53 | 0.553 |
| Refractive error | –0.11 ± 0.14 | –0.38 to 0.17 | 0.445 |
| Intraocular pressure | 0.13 ± 0.08 | –0.03 to 0.29 | 0.122 |
| Global RNFL thickness | 0.09 ± 0.02 | 0.05 to 0.13 |
|
| Global capillary density | 0.13 ± 0.03 | 0.06 to 0.19 |
|
| Disc–fovea angle | 0.09 ± 0.04 | 0.01 to 0.18 |
|
| Disc–fovea distance | 0.32 ± 0.87 | –1.38 to 2.02 | 0.709 |
* P value indicates significance of coefficient; bolded values are statistically significant.
Figure 4.Significance of factors from the multivariate mixed-effects modeling at test points from the 24-2 VF for (A) focal RNFL thickness and (B) focal capillary perfusion density. Green indicates a test location in which the corresponding parameter was significantly associated with VF loss. Locations located nearer fixation (0°, 0°) were more significantly influenced by FCD than FNL thickness. Correlations for nasal VF test locations were poor for both FNL thickness and FCD. One VF test location at eccentricity (9°, –3°) was excluded due to the limited arc of the FNL thickness defined by the trajectories for that location.
Number of VF Test Locations with Significant Associations Between Focal VF Loss and FCD or FNL Thickness
| Retinal Eccentricity | FCD | FNL | VF Test Locations |
|---|---|---|---|
| All | 34 (66.7%) | 16 (31.4%) | 51 |
| Less than 10° | 11 (100.0%) | 1 (9.1%) | 11 |
| Between 10° and 20° | 13 (72.2%) | 7 (38.9%) | 18 |
| More than 20° | 10 (45.5%) | 8 (36.3%) | 22 |
Percentages in parentheses indicate the proportion of VF test locations with significant associations between VF loss and FCD or FNL against the total number of VF locations.
Retinal eccentricity with respect to fixation.
Total number of visual field test locations with respect to fixation based on the Humphrey 24-2 test.
Figure 5.Scatterplots showing the association between VF losses and FCD or focal FNL thickness at different retinal eccentricities. (A) FNL thickness against VF loss, eccentricity less than 10°; (B) FNL thickness against VF loss, eccentricity between 10° and 20°; (C) FNL against VF loss, eccentricity greater than 20°; (D) FCD against VF loss, eccentricity less than 10°; (E) FCD against VF loss, eccentricity between 10° and 20°; (F) FNL thickness against VF loss, eccentricity greater than 20°. LOWESS curves were added to each scatterplot. LOWESS curves (blue) are provided with fits obtained from segmented regression analysis (SR, red).
Predicted Breakpoints and Corresponding Slopes from Segmented Regression Analysis
| VF Breakpoint | Slope Below Breakpoint | Slope Above Breakpoint | Difference in Slope | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Retinal Eccentricity Zone | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | ||||
| 0°–10° | ||||||||
| FNL thickness | –10.00 ± 6.14 | 0.57 ± 0.43 | 0.183 | 1.69 ± 0.35 | –1.12 ± 0.55 | |||
| FCD | –6.33 ± 3.91 | 0.073 | 0.89 ± 0.12 | 1.36 ± 0.24 | –0.47 ± 0.27 | 0.081 | ||
| 10°–20° | ||||||||
| FNL thickness | –6.91 ± 0.73 | 0.66 ± 0.16 | 3.52 ± 0.29 | –2.86 ± 0.33 | ||||
| FCD | –5.63 ± 0.67 | 0.65 ± 0.09 | 2.30 ± 0.21 | –1.66 ± 0.22 | ||||
| 20°–30° | ||||||||
| FNL thickness | –5.52 ± 1.72 | 0.65 ± 0.12 | 1.66 ± 0.35 | –1.00 ± 0.37 | ||||
| FCD | –5.00 ± 1.86 | 0.43 ± 0.08 | 1.00 ± 0.23 | –0.57 ± 0.24 | ||||
Bolded values are statistically significant.
Davies test for existence of a breakpoint.
Slope before breakpoint.
Slope after breakpoint.
Change in slope after breakpoint.