Background and aims Colour Doppler imaging (CDI) is a frequently cited methodology for quantifying ocular blood flow velocities. This investigation reviews the feasibility of creating a normative database of CDI parameters in glaucoma patients and controls. A literature search was conducted for CDI studies involving glaucomatous eyes. Using data from these studies, a weighted mean was derived for the peak systolic velocity, end diastolic velocity and Pourcelot's resistive index in the ophthalmic, central retinal and posterior ciliary arteries. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify whether methodological characteristics contributed to the inter-study variance in CDI values. Data from 3061 glaucoma patients and 1072 controls were included. The mean values for glaucomatous eyes were within one standard deviation of the values for controls for most CDI parameters. Gender mix (p=0.043), intraocular pressure status (p=0.017), frequency of the ultrasound transducer (p=0.02) and whether the patients were on antihypertensive therapy (p=0.004) contributed to the variance. Methodological differences create inter-study variance in CDI values, complicating the construction of a normative database and limiting its utility. Because the mean values for glaucomatous and normal eyes have overlapping ranges, caution should be used when classifying glaucoma status based on a single CDI measurement.
- reference values, orbit, physiology, imaging, diagnostic tests/investigation
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.
Funding This study was supported in part by an unrestricted grant from Research to Prevent Blindness, which had no involvement in design of the study, analysis of data, writing of the report or decision to submit the paper for publication.
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.