You are here

  • Home
  • Online First
  • Disparity of microaneurysm count between ultrawide field colour imaging and ultrawide field fluorescein angiography in eyes with diabetic retinopathy

Article Text

Article menu

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Clinical science
Disparity of microaneurysm count between ultrawide field colour imaging and ultrawide field fluorescein angiography in eyes with diabetic retinopathy
  1. Mohamed Ashraf1,2,
  2. Konstantina Sampani1,
  3. Omar AbdelAl1,
  4. Alan Fleming3,
  5. Jerry Cavallerano1,4,
  6. Ahmed Souka2,
  7. Samir Mohamed El Baha2,
  8. Paolo S Silva1,4,
  9. Jennifer Sun1,4,
  10. Lloyd Paul Aiello1,4
  1. 1Beetham Eye Institute, Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  2. 2Ophthalmology, Alexandria Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria, Egypt
  3. 3Research, Optos PLC, Dunfermline, UK
  4. 4Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Lloyd Paul Aiello, Joslin Diabetes Center, Beetham Eye Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA; LPAiello{at}joslin.harvard.edu

Abstract

Aims To compare microaneurysm (MA) counts using ultrawide field colour images (UWF-CI) and ultrawide field fluorescein angiography (UWF-FA).

Methods Retrospective study including patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus receiving UWF-FA and UWF-CI within 2 weeks. MAs were manually counted in individual Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) and extended UWF zones. Fields with MAs ≥20 determined diabetic retinopathy (DR) severity (0 fields=mild, 1–3=moderate, ≥4=severe). UWF-FA and UWF-CI agreement was determined and UWF-CI DR severity sensitivity analysis adjusting for UWF-FA MA counts performed.

Results In 193 patients (288 eyes), 2.4% had no DR, 29.9% mild non-proliferative DR (NPDR), 32.6% moderate (NPDR), 22.9% severe NPDR and 12.2% proliferative DR. UWF-FA MA counts were 3.5-fold higher (p<0.001) than UWF-CI counts overall, 3.2x-fold higher in ETDRS fields (p<0.001) and 5.3-fold higher in extended ETDRS fields (p<0.001) and higher in type 1 versus type 2 diabetes (p<0.001). In eyes with NPDR on UWF-CI (n=246), UWF-FA images had 1.6x–3.5x more fields with ≥20 MAs (p<0.001). Fair agreement existed between imaging modalities (k=0.221–0.416). In ETDRS fields, DR severity agreement increased from k=0.346 to 0.600 when dividing UWF-FA counts by a factor of 3, followed by rapid decline in agreement thereafter. Total UWF area agreement increased from k=0.317 to 0.565 with an adjustment factor of either 4 or 5.

Conclusions UWF-FA detects threefold to fivefold more MAs than UWF-CI and identifies 1.6–3.5-fold more fields affecting DR severity. Differences exist at all DR severity levels, thus limiting direct comparison between the modalities. However, correcting UWF-FA MA counts substantially improves DR severity agreement between the modalities.

  • diabetic retinopathy
  • ultrawide field imaging
  • microaneurysm
  • fluorescein angiography

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-315807

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    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.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @konsampani, @ahmedsouka

    • Correction notice This paper has been corrected since it was published Online First. In the abstract, the paper was mistakenly referred to as a clinical trial. This was an misunderstanding on the part of our copy editing team and we have now removed this trial registration number from the abstract.

    • Contributors MAE: draft and critical revision, concept and design, acquisition, analysis. KS: concept and design, critical revision, statistical analysis. OA: acquisition, critical revision of the manuscript, technical support. AF: analysis, critical revision, technical support. JC: critical review, technical support, concept and design. AS: concept and design, critical review, administrative and technical support. SMEB: concept and design, critical review, administrative and technical support. PSS: administrative, technical and material support, supervision, concept and design, critical revision. JS: administrative, technical and material support, supervision, concept and design, critical revision, statistical analysis. LPA: obtain funding, administrative, technical and material support, supervision, concept and design, critical revision.

    • Funding This work was supported by Massachusetts Lions Eye Research Fund and Research to Prevent Blindness.

    • Competing interests PSS reports non-financial support from Optos, plc, during the conduct of the study; non-financial support and other from Hill Rom, Inc, non-financial support from Optomed Oy (ltd), outside the submitted work. JS reports grants from Research to Prevent Blindness, during the conduct of the study. LPA reports non-financial support from Optos, plc, during the conduct of the study; non-financial support from Optos, plc, outside the submitted work.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    • Ethics approval The study was approved by the Joslin Diabetes Center Committee on Human Studies and adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    • Data availability statement Data are available upon reasonable request. Data includes deidentified participant data, the data can be provided by the corresponding author upon request. Reuse for further publications only permitted after written permission from the corresponding author.

    Linked Articles

    • At a glance
      Highlights from this issue
      Keith Barton James Chodosh Jost B Jonas
      British Journal of Ophthalmology 2020; 104 i-ii Published Online First: 23 Nov 2020. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-318350