Aim The aim of the study was to investigate the interchangeability and reliability of macular perfusion measurements using optical coherence tomography angiography.
Methods A prospective cross-sectional observational study. Healthy adult Chinese subjects were recruited. Macular perfusion parameters were automatically analysed by software included in a spectral-domain optical coherence tomography system. The vessel density (VD) of the whole, parafovea, superior-hemi, inferior-hemi, fovea, temporal, superior, nasal and inferior quadrants as well as the foveal avascular zone (FAZ) and choroidal capillary VD (CCVD) were quantified.
Results A total of 51 eyes in 27 subjects were included (8 men and 19 women, mean age 24±4 years). Significant differences in VD of all quadrants (all p<0.001) was detected between the 3×3 mm and 6×6 mm macular scan size. The biggest difference of VD between the two scan size was 5.14±4.03, which was not clinically meaningful. No statistically significant differences were found in FAZ or CCVD between the two different scan sizes. The mean intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between two measurements from the inter-rater of 20 eyes was from 0.560 to 0.893 for VD and 0.845 for FAZ. The mean ICC between two measurements from the intrarater of 20 eyes was from 0.497 to 0.870 for VD and 0.780 for FAZ.
Conclusions FAZ and CCVD are interchangeable between the 3×3 mm and 6×6 mm macular scan sizes. The VD differences between the two different scan sizes are not clinically meaningful. The macular perfusion parameters presented good but not perfect reliability, which should be acknowledged in clinical practice.
- vessel density
- optical coherence tomography angiography
- scan size
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors XGW: conception, design, data acquisition, analysis, drafting, critical revision. JD: conception design, data acquisition, drafting, critical revision. YDJ, QW, SHZ, YLJ, DH: conception, analysis, critical revision. All authors: final approval of the manuscript.
Funding This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 81501544, National Institutes of Health Grants R01 EY023285, DP3 DK104397, R01 EY024544, P30 EY010572, and an unrestricted grant from Research to Prevent Blindness to Casey Eye Institute, Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU).
Competing interests OHSU, YJ and DH have a significant financial interest in Optovue. DH also has a financial interest in Carl Zeiss Meditec. These potential conflicts of interest have been reviewed and managed by OHSU.
Ethics approval The First Hospital of Shanxi Medical University.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.