| Literature DB >> 34321998 |
Ane Murueta-Goyena1,2, Maitane Barrenechea3, Asier Erramuzpe3, Sara Teijeira-Portas1, Marta Pengo4, Unai Ayala3, David Romero-Bascones3, Marian Acera1, Rocío Del Pino1, Juan Carlos Gómez-Esteban1,5,6, Iñigo Gabilondo1,5,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Retinal microvascular alterations have been previously described in Parkinson's disease (PD) patients using optical coherence tomography angiography (OCT-A). However, an extensive description of retinal vascular morphological features, their association with PD-related clinical variables and their potential use as diagnostic biomarkers has not been explored.Entities:
Keywords: Parkinson’s disease; angiography; biomarker; capillary; density; neurodegeneration; optical coherence tomography; retina
Year: 2021 PMID: 34321998 PMCID: PMC8311167 DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2021.708700
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurosci ISSN: 1662-453X Impact factor: 4.677
FIGURE 1OCT-A image processing pipeline and evaluated retinal layers and regions for OCT and OCT-A images. The analysis protocol of the OCT-A images (A) was different for the superficial vascular complex (SVC) and for the deep vascular complex (DVC) (see “Materials and Methods” for more details). Both SVC and DVC images were cropped & rescaled (1) and binarized with an adaptive threshold (“adapt. thld.”) (2). In SVC images, after being binarized, the large vessels were segmented (3) and the microvessels were binarized (4). With binarized SVC microvessel and binarized DVC images, images for vessel skeleton (5) and perimeters (6) were obtained. From the vessel skeleton images, the “skeleton density” was quantified, from vessel perimeter images the “vessel perimeter index” was computed and from the combination of vessel skeleton and perimeter images, the “mean diameter of blood vessels” was computed. From the binarized images of SVC and DVC, the parameters “Lacunarity,” “Perfusion density,” and “Fractal dimension” were calculated. Finally, the cropped & rescaled DVC images were pre-processed with white top-hat and opening/closing to segment the foveal avascular zone (FAZ) mask, from which “FAZ area” and “FAZ circularity” were computed. The layers of the retina that were segmented from the OCT images (B) were macular retinal nerve fiber layer (mRNFL), ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer complex (GCIPL), inner nuclear layer (INL), outer plexiform layer, Henle fibers, and outernuclear layer complex (OPL-ONL) and the complex including external limiting membrane and internal andouter segments of photoreceptors (ELM-IS/OS). The mean thickness of the mentioned layers was obtained for two macular regions (B,C): the foveal region (central circle of 1 mm in diameter) and the parafoveal ring (centered in the fovea and delimited by circles with an inner diameter of 1-mm and outer diameter of 2.5 mm). For both regions, the mean thicknesses of the mentioned retinal layers and the described OCT-A parameters were calculated.
Demographics and clinical characteristics of participants.
| n | 49 | 40 | |
| Age (years) | 64.6 (7.9) | 62.1 (8.0) | 0.2 |
| Sex (female n, %) | 16 (34.7%) | 27 (67.5%) | <0.001 |
| MoCA | 24.4 (4.1) | 25.7 (2.5) | 0.3 |
| MCI (n, %) | 18 (36.7%) | 6 (15%) | 0.03 |
| Hypertension (n, %) | 12 (24.5%) | 7 (17.5%) | 0.59 |
| Disease Duration (years) | 7.1 (4.1) | – | |
| UPDRS I | 2.0 (1.5) | – | |
| UPDRS II | 10.8 (4.0) | – | |
| UPDRS III | 27.7 (7.7) | – | |
| UPDRS IV | 4.0 (2.9) | – | |
| LEDD (mg) | 647.5 (364.6) | – |
Foveal microvascular changes in PD.
| FAZ area (mm2) | SVC | 0.669 ± 0.214 | 0.824 ± 0.292 | 0.61 | ||
| DVC | 0.401 ± 0.181 | 0.544 ± 0.198 | 0.75 | |||
| FAZ circularity | SVC | 0.187 ± 0.038 | 0.194 ± 0.029 | 0.21 | 0.280 | 0.686 |
| DVC | 0.257 ± 0.045 | 0.271 ± 0.043 | 0.32 | 0.067 | 0.210 | |
| Lacunarity | SVC | 6.0 ± 0.4 | 5.7 ± 0.4 | 0.75 | ||
| DVC | 12.8 ± 0.7 | 9.8 ± 3.2 | 1.30 | |||
| Fractal Dimension | SVC | 1.42 ± 0.05 | 1.37 ± 0.09 | 0.69 | ||
| DVC | 1.49 ± 0.04 | 1.47 ± 0.04 | 0.50 | 0.127 | ||
| Perfusion Density | SVC | 0.14 ± 0.04 | 0.11 ± 0.05 | 0.66 | 0.112 | |
| DVC | 0.22 ± 0.04 | 0.20 ± 0.05 | 0.44 | |||
| Skeleton Density (1/mm) | SVC | 6.0 ± 1.9 | 4.8 ± 2.2 | 0.58 | 0.052 | 0.650 |
| DVC | 8.6 ± 1.9 | 7.6 ± 1.8 | 0.54 | |||
| Vessel Perimeter Index (1/mm) | SVC | 17.1 ± 4.8 | 13.6 ± 5.6 | 0.67 | 0.210 | |
| DVC | 27.6 ± 5.2 | 23.6 ± 5.6 | 0.74 | 0.541 | ||
| Vessel Diameter (μm) | SVC | 23.3 ± 1.6 | 23.7 ± 2.1 | 0.21 | 0.160 | 0.056 |
| DVC | 26.1 ± 2.1 | 25.8 ± 2.0 | 0.15 | 0.320 | 0.944 | |
FIGURE 2Representative images of the microvascularization in the foveal zone in controls and PD patients. Top panel figures show binarized images of the Deep Vascular Complex of the retina, centered in the centroid of the Foveal Avascular Zone (FAZ), in a circle with a radius of 500 μm. The scaling factor was 5.60 in both subjects, so the differences in FAZ size cannot be attributed to ocular biometric differences or magnification effects. Graphs correspond to the results in the Deep Vascular Complex. Significance levels of unadjusted GEE models are represented with an asterisk: *p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Microvascular and thickness parameters in PD patients with and without MCI.
| n | 18 | 31 | |||
| FAZ area (mm2) | SVC | 0.73 ± 0.20 | 0.63 ± 0.21 | 0.49 | 0.049 |
| DVC | 0.43 ± 0.17 | 0.38 ± 0.18 | 0.29 | – | |
| FAZ circularity | SVC | 0.17 ± 0.02 | 0.20 ± 0.04 | 0.95 | 0.001 |
| DVC | 0.25 ± 0.05 | 0.26 ± 0.04 | 0.22 | – | |
| Fractal Dimension | SVC | 1.40 ± 0.05 | 1.42 ± 0.05 | 0.40 | – |
| DVC | 1.49 ± 0.04 | 1.50 ± 0.04 | 0.25 | – | |
| Lacunarity | SVC | 6.02 ± 0.32 | 6.03 ± 0.48 | 0.02 | – |
| DVC | 12.59 ± 0.63 | 12.91 ± 0.66 | 0.50 | – | |
| Skeleton Density (1/mm) | SVC | 11.8 ± 1.5 | 11.7 ± 1.2 | 0.07 | – |
| DVC | 12.0 ± 1.2 | 12.1 ± 1.3 | 0.08 | – | |
| Perfusion Density | SVC | 0.28 ± 0.04 | 0.27 ± 0.03 | 0.28 | – |
| DVC | 0.31 ± 0.02 | 0.32 ± 0.02 | 0.50 | – | |
| Fractal Dimension | SVC | 1.63 ± 0.02 | 1.63 ± 0.01 | 0 | – |
| DVC | 1.69 ± 0.01 | 1.69 ± 0.01 | 0 | – | |
| Lacunarity | SVC | 1.04 ± 0.01 | 1.04 ± 0.01 | 0 | – |
| DVC | 10.98 ± 0.24 | 11.14 ± 0.24 | 0.67 | – | |
| Skeleton Density (1/mm) | SVC | 11.4 ± 1.4 | 11.8 ± 1.3 | 0.30 | – |
| DVC | 13.4 ± 1.2 | 13.5 ± 1.2 | 0.08 | – | |
| Perfusion Density | SVC | 0.24 ± 0.02 | 0.24 ± 0.02 | 0.00 | – |
| DVC | 0.35 ± 0.01 | 0.35 ± 0.01 | 0.00 | – | |
| Retina | 277.1 ± 19.1 | 286.3 ± 18.2 | 0.49 | 0.045 | |
| GCIPL | 36.0 ± 7.7 | 39.4 ± 7.9 | 0.44 | – | |
| INL | 19.4 ± 6.1 | 21.0 ± 5.9 | 0.27 | – | |
| OPL-ONL | 117.2 ± 13.7 | 123.3 ± 8.4 | 0.54 | 0.047 | |
| ELM-IS/OS | 49.6 ± 6.2 | 49.1 ± 4.9 | 0.09 | – | |
| Retina | 339.4 ± 14.8 | 345.9 ± 13.3 | 0.46 | – | |
| GCIPL | 92.0 ± 8.5 | 96.3 ± 7.2 | 0.55 | 0.039 | |
| INL | 40.7 ± 2.8 | 40.7 ± 4.3 | 0 | – | |
| OPL-ONL | 104.7 ± 8.1 | 106.1 ± 6.6 | 0.19 | – | |
| ELM-IS/OS | 44.2 ± 3.5 | 44.0 ± 3.0 | 0.06 | – | |
FIGURE 3Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for testing the diagnostic accuracy of microvascular parameters. Fitted values resulting from logistic regression were used as classifiers. ROC curve for the null model is shown in red, in which confounding demographical and clinical variables were used as independent factors, including age, sex, and hypertension. In blue, ROC curves of regression models that were significantly different from null (Wald test) after adding single microvascular parameters to the model. AUC, area under the curve; DVC, deep vascular complex; SVC, superficial vascular complex.