Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Purpose To compare the sensitivity and specificity of identifying and evaluating the choroidal neovascularisation (CNV) in punctate inner choroidopathy (PIC) by optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) versus dye angiography.
Methods Consecutive patients diagnosed with PIC were enrolled in this study from June 2016 to December 2019. During the same visit, each patient underwent comprehensive ophthalmological and multimodal imaging examinations. The diagnostic accuracy of different modalities was evaluated.
Results The study included 160 affected eyes from 123 patients. Ninety-five eyes (59.38%) were identified with secondary CNV by multimodal imaging. The sensitivity and specificity for CNV detection with OCTA alone were 89.47% and 98.46%, respectively. OCTA also provided the morphology of CNV to determine the activity of CNV with a sensitivity of 86.67% and a specificity of 94.29%.
Conclusions In this study, we investigated the utility of OCTA in the diagnosis and evaluation of patients with CNV secondary to PIC. Compared with dye angiography, OCTA show convincing diagnosis accuracy. Although OCTA has several limitations and is not sufficient to replace dye angiography in clinical practice, it can provide clinicians with a non-invasive way to monitor patients with CNV secondary to PIC and guide treatment decisions.
- retina
- imaging
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. All free text entered below will be published.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors FW and YG conceived and designed the study. XZ, YS, YP, YG and MS carried out experiments. YG and MS collected and analyse the data of the study. YG wrote the manuscript. FW and XZ reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors read and approved the manuscript.
Funding This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant numbers 81570831].
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.
Linked Articles
- At a glance