Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024
Interpretation of SD-OCT imaging data in real-life conditions versus standardized reading centre analysis in eyes with diabetic macular oedema or macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion: 24-month follow-up of the ORCA study.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Spital Georg, Schmitz-Valckenberg Steffen, Müller Bettina, Liczenczias Erika, Chang Petrus, Heimes-Bussmann Britta, Ziemssen Focke, Liakopoulos Sandra, ORCA study group
Аннотация
PURPOSE: As part of the prospective, non-interventional OCEAN study, the ORCA module evaluated physicians' spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) image interpretations in the treatment of diabetic macular oedema (DME) or macular oedema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO).
METHODS: Presence of intraretinal fluid (IRF) and/or subretinal fluid (SRF) was evaluated independently by physicians and reading centres (RCs) on 1612 SD-OCT scans of 133 patients diagnosed with either DME or ME secondary to RVO. Agreement between physicians and RCs was calculated for both cohorts individually and as a combined ME cohort. Physicians' treatment decisions were analysed related to the results of the OCT-evaluations.
RESULTS: For the combined ME cohort, presence of IRF/SRF was recorded by RCs in 792/1612 (49.1%) visits and by physicians in 852/1612 (52.9%) visits, with an agreement regarding presence or absence of foveal fluid in 70.4% of cases. In 64.4% (510/792) of visits with RC-detected foveal IRF and/or SRF no injection was given. In 30.3% of these visits with foveal fluid no reason was identified for a 'watch and wait' approach indicating possible undertreatment. BCVA deterioration was seen in a quarter of these eyes at the following visit.
CONCLUSION: Despite good agreement between physicians and RCs to recognize SRF and IRF, our data indicate that omitting injections despite foveal involvement of fluid is frequent in routine clinical practice. This may put patients at risk of undertreatment, which may negatively impact real-life BCVA outcomes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.
CLINICALTRIALS: gov , identifier NCT02194803.
METHODS: Presence of intraretinal fluid (IRF) and/or subretinal fluid (SRF) was evaluated independently by physicians and reading centres (RCs) on 1612 SD-OCT scans of 133 patients diagnosed with either DME or ME secondary to RVO. Agreement between physicians and RCs was calculated for both cohorts individually and as a combined ME cohort. Physicians' treatment decisions were analysed related to the results of the OCT-evaluations.
RESULTS: For the combined ME cohort, presence of IRF/SRF was recorded by RCs in 792/1612 (49.1%) visits and by physicians in 852/1612 (52.9%) visits, with an agreement regarding presence or absence of foveal fluid in 70.4% of cases. In 64.4% (510/792) of visits with RC-detected foveal IRF and/or SRF no injection was given. In 30.3% of these visits with foveal fluid no reason was identified for a 'watch and wait' approach indicating possible undertreatment. BCVA deterioration was seen in a quarter of these eyes at the following visit.
CONCLUSION: Despite good agreement between physicians and RCs to recognize SRF and IRF, our data indicate that omitting injections despite foveal involvement of fluid is frequent in routine clinical practice. This may put patients at risk of undertreatment, which may negatively impact real-life BCVA outcomes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.
CLINICALTRIALS: gov , identifier NCT02194803.