Aim To describe and correlate electroretinographic responses with clinical and angiographic findings in retinal vasculitis (RV).
Methods Medical records of patients with diagnosis of RV at a tertiary eye centre from December 2017 to May 2021 were reviewed. Cases in which fluorescein angiography (FFA) and full field electroretinography (ffERG) were done within 1 month were included. FFAs were graded according to the Angiography Scoring for Uveitis Working Group from 0 to 40, where 0 is normal. A novel ffERG grading system was implemented where individual waves were graded for timing and amplitude and general ffERG score was determined with 6 being a perfect score.
Results 20 patients (34 eyes) were included. Mean age was 43.9±19.8 years; 70% were female. Median best-corrected visual acuity was 0.8 (0.08–1). Mean FFA score was 12.6±6.5. Median general ffERG score was 5 (0–6). 68% and 91% of eyes had responses with general ffERG scores ≥5 and 4, respectively. Flicker timing was most commonly affected.
FFA scores weakly correlated with delayed photopic cone b-wave and flicker timing (p=0.03 and 0.016, respectively). Vitreous haze moderately correlated with delayed cone b-wave timing (p<0.001), delayed flicker timing (p=0.002) and weakly correlated with lower flicker amplitude (p=0.03). Underlying systemic disease was associated with poor ffERG responses.
Conclusion In this study, RV was not frequently associated with severe global retinal dysfunction Higher FFA scores, and vitreous haze grading were weakly, but significantly, correlated with cone-generated ffERG responses.
Data availability statement
No data are available.
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 HHG, WM, CO, HK, IK and JR conceptualised and designed the study, drafted the initial manuscript, and reviewed and revised the manuscript. PP, MZ, JH, SL, NY, NTTT, SWP, AA, GU and CY designed the data collection instruments, collected data, carried out the initial analyses and reviewed and revised the manuscript. L-SBL and QDN provided and cared for study patients, conceptualised and designed the study, coordinated and supervised data collection, and critically reviewed the manuscript for important intellectual content. Guarantor: QDN.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
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.