PRECIS: Macular superficial capillary plexus (SCP) vessel density is more informative than deep capillary plexus (DCP) vessel density for the detection of glaucoma. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to characterize optical coherence tomography angiography macular SCP and projection-resolved DCP vessel densities and compare their diagnostic accuracies with ganglion cell complex (GCC) thickness in healthy, glaucoma suspect, and glaucoma eyes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-eight eyes of 44 healthy subjects, 26 eyes of 16 preperimetric glaucoma suspects, and 161 eyes of 124 glaucoma patients from the Diagnostics Innovations in Glaucoma Study with good quality high-density 6×6 mm2 macula optical coherence tomography angiography images were included. The diagnostic accuracy of SCP vessel density, projection-resolved DCP vessel density and GCC thickness were compared among groups. RESULTS: Mean whole image vessel density (wiVD; % of area occupied by vessels containing flowing blood) in the SCP layer was highest in healthy eyes (49.7%), followed by glaucoma suspect eyes (46.0%), and glaucoma eyes (40.9%) (P<0.001). Mean wiVD in the DCP layer was similar in healthy (50.6%), glaucoma suspect (47.3%), and glaucoma eyes (45.7%) (P=0.925). Diagnostic accuracy of both GCC thickness and SCP wiVD was significantly higher than DCP wiVD for classifying healthy and glaucoma eyes [adjusted area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (95% confidence interval): GCC=0.86 (0.72, 0.94), SCP=0.80 (0.66, 0.91) and DCP=0.44 (0.30, 0.57)] (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: SCP vessel densities have better diagnostic accuracy for detecting glaucoma than DCP vessel densities. Although the diagnostic accuracy of the macula SCP is relatively modest, it is more informative than the DCP.
PRECIS: Macular superficial capillary plexus (SCP) vessel density is more informative than deep capillary plexus (DCP) vessel density for the detection of glaucoma. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to characterize optical coherence tomography angiography macular SCP and projection-resolved DCP vessel densities and compare their diagnostic accuracies with ganglion cell complex (GCC) thickness in healthy, glaucoma suspect, and glaucoma eyes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-eight eyes of 44 healthy subjects, 26 eyes of 16 preperimetric glaucoma suspects, and 161 eyes of 124 glaucoma patients from the Diagnostics Innovations in Glaucoma Study with good quality high-density 6×6 mm2 macula optical coherence tomography angiography images were included. The diagnostic accuracy of SCP vessel density, projection-resolved DCP vessel density and GCC thickness were compared among groups. RESULTS: Mean whole image vessel density (wiVD; % of area occupied by vessels containing flowing blood) in the SCP layer was highest in healthy eyes (49.7%), followed by glaucoma suspect eyes (46.0%), and glaucoma eyes (40.9%) (P<0.001). Mean wiVD in the DCP layer was similar in healthy (50.6%), glaucoma suspect (47.3%), and glaucoma eyes (45.7%) (P=0.925). Diagnostic accuracy of both GCC thickness and SCP wiVD was significantly higher than DCP wiVD for classifying healthy and glaucoma eyes [adjusted area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (95% confidence interval): GCC=0.86 (0.72, 0.94), SCP=0.80 (0.66, 0.91) and DCP=0.44 (0.30, 0.57)] (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: SCP vessel densities have better diagnostic accuracy for detecting glaucoma than DCP vessel densities. Although the diagnostic accuracy of the macula SCP is relatively modest, it is more informative than the DCP.
Authors: Jayasree P Venugopal; Harsha L Rao; Robert N Weinreb; Zia S Pradhan; Srilakshmi Dasari; Mohammed Riyazuddin; Narenda K Puttiah; Dhanraj A S Rao; Sathi Devi; Kaweh Mansouri; Carroll Ab Webers Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2017-07-24 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Abtin Shahlaee; Wasim A Samara; Jason Hsu; Emil Anthony T Say; M Ali Khan; Jayanth Sridhar; Bryan K Hong; Carol L Shields; Allen C Ho Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2016-02-24 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Donald C Hood; Ali S Raza; Carlos Gustavo V de Moraes; Jeffrey G Odel; Vivienne C Greenstein; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Robert Ritch Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-02-16 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Liang Liu; Yali Jia; Hana L Takusagawa; Alex D Pechauer; Beth Edmunds; Lorinna Lombardi; Ellen Davis; John C Morrison; David Huang Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Hana L Takusagawa; Liang Liu; Kelly N Ma; Yali Jia; Simon S Gao; Miao Zhang; Beth Edmunds; Mansi Parikh; Shandiz Tehrani; John C Morrison; David Huang Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Alessandro Rabiolo; Francesco Gelormini; Riccardo Sacconi; Maria Vittoria Cicinelli; Giacinto Triolo; Paolo Bettin; Kouros Nouri-Mahdavi; Francesco Bandello; Giuseppe Querques Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-10-18 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Alireza Kamalipour; Sasan Moghimi; Huiyuan Hou; James A Proudfoot; Takashi Nishida; Linda M Zangwill; Robert N Weinreb Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2021-11-19 Impact factor: 5.488
Authors: Nevin W El-Nimri; Sasan Moghimi; Rafaella C Penteado; Elham Ghahari; Diya Yang; Nicole Brye; James Proudfoot; Jiun L Do; Andrew Camp; Matthew Salcedo; Veronica Rubio; Robert N Weinreb Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2022-05-06 Impact factor: 5.488
Authors: Nevin W El-Nimri; Eleonora Micheletti; Vahid Mohammadzadeh; Takashi Nishida; Alireza Kamalipour; Linda M Zangwill; Christopher Bowd; Sasan Moghimi; Robert N Weinreb Journal: J Glaucoma Date: 2022-03-23 Impact factor: 2.290