Seidel Gerald, Aschinger Gerold, Singer Christoph, Herzog Sereina Annik, Weger Martin, Haas Anton, Werkmeister René Marcel, Schmetterer Leopold, Garhöfer Gerhard
Department of Ophthalmology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Center for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016 Oct 1;134(10):1104-1110. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.2507.
While optical coherence tomography (OCT) angiography has been considered to evaluate retinal capillary blood flow instead of fluorescein angiography, the reflectance pattern of blood vessels on structural OCT might also provide retinal capillary flow data in the absence of fluorescein angiography. This potential has been insufficiently explored, despite promising data concerning a possible relationship between the reflectance pattern of blood vessels and their perfusion velocity in a laboratory setting.
To evaluate the potential of retinal blood flow velocity estimation by structural OCT.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional observational study conducted from June to November 2015 at a tertiary clinical referral center. Sixty arteries (the superior and inferior temporal arteries) from 30 eyes of 30 patients (17 female, 13 male) were included in the study.
Based on the intraluminal contrast patterns of retinal arteries on OCT, 3 independent graders categorized the blood flow velocities as low, medium, or high. These results and the results from a software-based intraluminal contrast analysis were compared with the retinal blood flow velocities measured by video fluorescein angiography.
Among the 30 eyes of 30 patients (mean [SD] age, 72.6 [12.3] years; 17 female, 13 male), 15 were controls without retinal occlusion, 6 had a branch retinal artery occlusion, and 9 had a central retinal artery occlusion. When discriminating between low flow velocities and medium or high flow velocities, the graders' sensitivity ranged from 88.2% to 100% (grader 1: 88.2%; 95% CI, 63.6%-98.5%; grader 2: 88.2%; 95% CI, 63.6%-98.5%; and grader 3: 100%; 95% CI, 69.8%-100%) and their specificity ranged from 97.6% to 100% (grader 1: 100%; 95% CI, 87.7%-100%; grader 2: 97.6%; 95% CI, 87.4%-99.9%; and grader 3: 100%; 95% CI, 87.7%-100%). The κ coefficients of the comparison between the 3 graders and the angiography were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.60-0.93; P < .001), 0.64 (95% CI, 0.44-0.83; P < .001), and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.74-0.99; P < .001). In the computer-based assessment, the contrast reduction of the intraluminal pattern could be numerically expressed in a specific coefficient in the model (I2, describing the angular change of the backscattering intensity in the model), which presented nonoverlapping intervals between low flow velocities and medium or high flow velocities (mean [SD] I2, 0.3 [5.3], 20.4 [6.4], and 21.7 [4.0], respectively).
This study suggests that a low retinal blood flow velocity reflects in a visually distinct contrast reduction of the intraluminal pattern of retinal vessels on OCT. Larger studies are required to assess the clinical benefits.
虽然光学相干断层扫描(OCT)血管造影已被用于评估视网膜毛细血管血流,而非荧光素血管造影,但在没有荧光素血管造影的情况下,结构OCT上血管的反射模式也可能提供视网膜毛细血管血流数据。尽管在实验室环境中,有关血管反射模式与其灌注速度之间可能存在关系的研究数据很有前景,但这一潜力尚未得到充分探索。
评估通过结构OCT估计视网膜血流速度的潜力。
设计、地点和参与者:2015年6月至11月在一家三级临床转诊中心进行的横断面观察性研究。研究纳入了30例患者(17例女性,13例男性)30只眼中的60条动脉(颞上动脉和颞下动脉)。
基于OCT上视网膜动脉的管腔内对比模式,3名独立的分级人员将血流速度分为低、中或高。将这些结果以及基于软件的管腔内对比分析结果与视频荧光素血管造影测量的视网膜血流速度进行比较。
在30例患者的30只眼中(平均[标准差]年龄,72.6[12.3]岁;17例女性,13例男性),15例为无视网膜阻塞的对照者,6例有视网膜分支动脉阻塞,9例有视网膜中央动脉阻塞。在区分低血流速度与中或高血流速度时,分级人员的敏感性范围为88.2%至100%(分级人员1:88.2%;95%置信区间,63.6%-98.5%;分级人员2:88.2%;95%置信区间,63.6%-98.5%;分级人员3:100%;95%置信区间,69.8%-100%),其特异性范围为97.6%至100%(分级人员1:100%;95%置信区间,87.7%-100%;分级人员2:97.6%;95%置信区间,87.4%-99.9%;分级人员3:100%;95%置信区间,87.7%-100%)。3名分级人员与血管造影之间比较的κ系数分别为0.77(95%置信区间,0.60-0.93;P < .001)、0.64(95%置信区间,0.44-0.83;P < .001)和0.87(95%置信区间,0.74-0.99;P < .001)。在基于计算机的评估中,管腔内模式的对比度降低可以在模型中用一个特定系数进行数值表示(I2,描述模型中后向散射强度的角度变化),该系数在低血流速度与中或高血流速度之间呈现不重叠的区间(平均[标准差]I2分别为0.3[5.3]、20.4[6.4]和21.7[4.0])。
本研究表明,视网膜血流速度降低反映在OCT上视网膜血管管腔内模式在视觉上明显的对比度降低。需要进行更大规模的研究来评估其临床益处。