| Literature DB >> 36180027 |
Jessica Song1, Bonnie B Huang1, Janice X Ong1, Nicholas Konopek1, Amani A Fawzi1.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate retinal hemodynamic responses to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injection in eyes with diabetic macular edema using optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA). We performed a comparison of two different thresholding methods to identify the most accurate for studying the vessel density (VD) in diabetic macular edema eyes.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36180027 PMCID: PMC9547366 DOI: 10.1167/tvst.11.10.5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol ISSN: 2164-2591 Impact factor: 3.048
Figure 1.Optical OCTA of the DCP from baseline to follow-up with AFI. (Top row) Parafoveal area of DCP at baseline (left) and follow-up (right). (Middle row) Binarized parafoveal area of DCP at baseline (left) and follow-up (right). (Bottom row) Skeletonized parafoveal area of DCP at baseline (left) and follow-up (right).
Figure 2.Example of DCP VLD-based thresholding method. For a variety of possible threshold values, the DCP VLD is calculated and plotted on a graph. Two regression lines are fitted, with one on the steep region of the curve representing noise (blue) and one on the plateau region of the curve representing signal (orange). The final chosen threshold for this particular image is located at the intersection of the regression lines (black arrow).
Figure 3.Evaluating Different OCTA Thresholding Methods for DME Eyes. (a) Example of an averaged scan of the DCP layer in a DME eye. (b) Best quality scan out of the 5 scan used to generate the average image in with black line indicating ideal fit line (a). Here, the VLD-based method (VD = 0.293) matches the ground truth VD (VD = 0.338) more closely than the AngioVue method (VD = 0.451). (c, d) Graph comparing the AngioVue method (c) and the VLD- based method (d) with the averaged scan VD. MAE, mean absolute error; m, slope of the best fit line.
Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Study Patients
| Patients | 22 |
| Eyes | 26 |
| Age, years | 60.2 ± 13.7 |
| Sex | |
| Female | 11 (50) |
| Male | 11 (50) |
| Diabetes | |
| Type 1 | 4 (18) |
| Type 2 | 18 (82) |
| Disease duration, years | 19.0 ± 11.3 |
| DR Dx | |
| Mild NPDR | 3 (12) |
| Moderate NPDR | 10 (38) |
| Severe NPDR | 3 (12) |
| PDR | 10 (38) |
| PRP treated | 8 (80) |
| No PRP | 2 (20) |
| Last HbA1c | 7.6 ± 1.4 |
| Mean Interval between OCTA scans (days) | 31.1 ± 17.3 |
| Treatment | |
| Naïve | 3 (12) |
| Previous treatment (e.g., intravitreal injections, panretinal photocoagulation) | 23 (88) |
| Prior intravitreal injections | |
| <10 | 17 (65) |
| 10–19 | 2 (8) |
| 20–29 | 2 (8) |
| ≥30 | 5 (19) |
Values are number, number (%), or mean ± standard deviation.
OCTA Retinal Hemodynamic Imaging Outcomes at Baseline Versus Follow-Up
| Measurement | Baseline Mean | Follow-Up Mean | |
| (Mean ± SD) | ( | ( | |
| SSI | 58.65 ± 6.34 | 59.58 ± 7.22 | 0.373 |
| Q-Score | 7.15 ± 1.05 | 7.12 ± 1.07 | 0.840 |
| CFT | 339.53 ± 75.86 | 314.92 ± 69.96 |
|
| FAZ | 0.3362 ± 0.1598 | 0.3173± 0.1492 |
|
| AFI | |||
| Full Retina | 0.441 ± 0.058 | 0.439 ± 0.062 | 0.639 |
| SCP | 0.452 ± 0.057 | 0.450 ± 0.060 | 0.742 |
| MCP | 0.424 ± 0.064 | 0.428 ± 0.069 | 0.248 |
| DCP | 0.430 ± 0.023 | 0.417 ± 0.043 |
|
| VD | |||
| Full retina | 46.185 ± 6.771 | 46.877 ± 5.770 | 0.201 |
| SCP | 37.065 ± 6.127 | 36.881 ± 5.856 | 0.467 |
| MCP | 41.085 ± 5.636 | 41.246 ± 6.084 | 0.844 |
| DCP | 25.423 ± 6.330 | 27.253 ± 7.087 | 0.093 |
| VLD | |||
| SCP | 13.046 ± 2.894 | 13.344 ± 2.948 | 0.984 |
Imaging characteristics (SSI, Q-score, CFT) were compared using paired t tests. OCTA measurements (FAZ, AFI, VD, and VLD) were compared using generalized linear model adjusted for CFT and Q-score. Values presented in bold are significant as defined by p-value < 0.05.