Dave Prachi A, Dansingani Kunal K, Jabeen Ayesha, Jabeen Asiya, Hasnat Ali M, Vupparaboina Kiran Kumar, Peguda Hari Kumar, Pappurru Rajeev Reddy, Agrawal Rupesh, Chhablani Jay
Dr. Shroff's Charity Eye Hospital, New Delhi, India.
Truhlsen Eye Institute at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska.
Optom Vis Sci. 2018 Jul;95(7):602-607. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001238.
This study compares foveal avascular zone (FAZ) geometry in healthy eyes as imaged by two commercially available optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) devices. Foveal avascular zone measurements are repeatable and reproducible with each OCTA device, but interdevice agreement was poor. We provide conversion factors between devices.
The purpose of this study was to perform comparative evaluation of FAZ geometry in healthy eyes as imaged by two commercially available OCTA devices.
Ninety-six eyes of 48 healthy subjects were imaged prospectively on each of two OCTA devices (DRI-OCT [Topcon Corporation, Tokyo, Japan]; Cirrus 5000 [Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc., Dublin, CA]). The FAZ was evaluated in the superficial capillary plexus layer of 6 × 6-mm foveal scans by two masked observers. Intraobserver and interobserver agreement was determined using intraclass correlation by using linear mixed models and Bland-Altman plots. K-means clustering was used to provide conversion values between two devices. Foveal avascular zone acircularity was calculated using scans from each device and compared.
The intraobserver repeatability for DRI-OCT was 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 0.98) for observer A and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.83 to 0.96) for observer B. Intraobserver repeatability for Cirrus 5000 was 0.988 (95% CI, 0.972 to 0.995) for observer A and 0.993 (95% CI, 0.983 to 0.997) for observer B. The interobserver variability between observers A and B for DRI-OCT was 0.87 (0.73 to 0.94) and for Cirrus 5000 was 0.984 (95% CI, 0.964 to 0.993). Poor interdevice agreement (0.205 [95% CI, -0.202 to 0.554]) was noted, and conversion formulas were devised to convert FAZ area measurements from one device to another. No significant correlation was found when comparing FAZ acircularity indices between devices (P = .39).
Repeatable and reproducible FAZ area measurements were obtained with each respective OCTA device, but interdevice agreement was poor, yet quantifiable and systematic with calculable conversion factors between devices.
本研究比较了使用两种商用光学相干断层扫描血管造影（OCTA）设备成像的健康眼睛的黄斑无血管区（FAZ）几何形态。每种OCTA设备对FAZ的测量具有可重复性和再现性，但不同设备之间的一致性较差。我们提供了不同设备之间的转换因子。
本研究的目的是对使用两种商用OCTA设备成像的健康眼睛的FAZ几何形态进行比较评估。
对48名健康受试者的96只眼睛分别使用两种OCTA设备（DRI-OCT [日本东京拓普康公司]；Cirrus 5000 [美国加利福尼亚州都柏林卡尔蔡司医疗技术公司]）进行前瞻性成像。两名经过盲法处理的观察者在6×6 mm黄斑扫描的浅表毛细血管丛层中评估FAZ。使用线性混合模型和Bland-Altman图，通过组内相关系数确定观察者内和观察者间的一致性。使用K均值聚类法提供两种设备之间的转换值。使用每种设备的扫描计算FAZ的非圆度并进行比较。
观察者A对DRI-OCT的观察者内重复性为0.95（95%置信区间[CI]，0.90至0.98），观察者B为0.92（95%CI，0.83至0.96）。观察者A对Cirrus 5000的观察者内重复性为0.988（95%CI，0.972至0.995），观察者B为0.993（95%CI，0.983至0.997）。观察者A和B之间，DRI-OCT的观察者间变异性为0.87（0.73至0.94），Cirrus 5000为0.984（95%CI，0.964至0.993）。注意到不同设备之间的一致性较差（0.205 [95%CI，-0.202至0.554]），并设计了转换公式以将一种设备的FAZ面积测量值转换为另一种设备的测量值。比较不同设备之间的FAZ非圆度指数时未发现显著相关性（P = 0.39）。
使用每种OCTA设备均可获得可重复和可再现的FAZ面积测量值，但不同设备之间的一致性较差，不过可量化且具有系统性，不同设备之间有可计算的转换因子。
