Translational vision science & technology · 2023
Disagreement of Radial Peripapillary Capillary Density Among Four Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography Devices.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sawaspadungkij Monchanok, Apinyawasisuk Supanut, Suwan Yanin, Aghsaei Fard Masoud, Sahraian Alireza, Jalili Jalil, Chansangpetch Sunee
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This prospective study evaluated the agreement among four optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) devices in the assessment of radial peripapillary capillary (RPC) density.
METHODS: The study included 48 eyes of 48 subjects (14 healthy, 19 glaucomatous, and 15 non-glaucomatous optic neuropathy). Each participant was scanned using four OCTA devices in a random sequence: RTVue XR Avanti (RTVue), DRI OCT Triton (Triton), Revo NX 130 (Revo), and PLEX Elite 9000 (PlexE). All 6 × 6-mm grayscale OCTA images from each device were analyzed for RPC density using a customized algorithm. Agreement between each pair of devices was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman plots.
RESULTS: There was a poor correlation between devices in all comparisons (RTVue-Triton, ICC = 0.34; RTVue-Revo, ICC = 0.31; RTVue-PlexE, ICC = 0.28; Triton-Revo, ICC = 0.31; Triton-PlexE, ICC = 0.17; Revo-PlexE, ICC = 0.34). Significant proportional biases (P < 0.05) and wide limits of agreement with apparent constant biases were identified in all comparisons. The mean difference was greatest for the RTVue-Revo pair (-49.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -52.9 to -45.8) and smallest for the Triton-PlexE pair (-7.7%; 95% CI, -10.1 to -5.3).
CONCLUSIONS: The RPC densities obtained from each device had poor inter-device agreement and significant biases and cannot be used interchangeably.
TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: RPC density obtained from different OCTA devices is not interchangeable; thus, the progression of optic neuropathy should be monitored using the same OCTA device.
METHODS: The study included 48 eyes of 48 subjects (14 healthy, 19 glaucomatous, and 15 non-glaucomatous optic neuropathy). Each participant was scanned using four OCTA devices in a random sequence: RTVue XR Avanti (RTVue), DRI OCT Triton (Triton), Revo NX 130 (Revo), and PLEX Elite 9000 (PlexE). All 6 × 6-mm grayscale OCTA images from each device were analyzed for RPC density using a customized algorithm. Agreement between each pair of devices was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman plots.
RESULTS: There was a poor correlation between devices in all comparisons (RTVue-Triton, ICC = 0.34; RTVue-Revo, ICC = 0.31; RTVue-PlexE, ICC = 0.28; Triton-Revo, ICC = 0.31; Triton-PlexE, ICC = 0.17; Revo-PlexE, ICC = 0.34). Significant proportional biases (P < 0.05) and wide limits of agreement with apparent constant biases were identified in all comparisons. The mean difference was greatest for the RTVue-Revo pair (-49.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -52.9 to -45.8) and smallest for the Triton-PlexE pair (-7.7%; 95% CI, -10.1 to -5.3).
CONCLUSIONS: The RPC densities obtained from each device had poor inter-device agreement and significant biases and cannot be used interchangeably.
TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: RPC density obtained from different OCTA devices is not interchangeable; thus, the progression of optic neuropathy should be monitored using the same OCTA device.