■新生血管性年龄相关性黄斑变性(nAMD)的治疗决策主要基于OCT的主观评估。本横断面研究的目的是以系统的方式比较OCT设备之间的定性和定量差异。
■预期,横断面研究。
■一百六十卷OCT,40例nAMD患者40只眼。
来自临床实践的患者在一次访问中使用4种不同的OCT设备进行成像:(1)SpectralisHeidelberg;(2)Cirrus;(3)TopconMaestro2;和(4)TopconTriton。香烟液体(IRF),视网膜下液(SRF),和色素上皮脱离(PED)由受过训练的人类专家在所有立方体中手动注释,以建立基于专家读者注释的流体测量。香烟液体,SRF,和PED体积以纳升(nL)定量。创建Bland-Altman地块以分析中心1和6mm的测量结果的一致性。进行Friedman测试以测试中心1、3和6mm的显著差异。
■香烟液体,SRF,和PED卷。
■在中心6毫米处,与其他设备相比,光谱图像中的IRF和PED体积有增加的趋势,SRF体积没有差异.在中央1毫米,对于IRF,差异的标准偏差范围为±3nL至±6nL,SRF从±3nL到±4nL,在所有成对比较中,PED从±7nL到±10nL。手动注释的IRF和SRF体积显示在中央1mm没有显著差别。
■在从4个OCT设备获得的图像上,流体体积定量在所有3个视网膜隔室中实现了出色的可靠性,特别是临床相关的IRF和SRF值。尽管在所有4个OCT装置中流体体积定量是可靠的,与中心6mm相比,切换OCT装置可能导致中心1mm处的流体体积测量偏差,与SRF体积在中央1毫米的最高协议。了解与设备相关的差异对于在临床实践和临床试验中扩展逐像素流体体积测量的解释和实施至关重要。
■专有或商业披露可在本文末尾的脚注和披露中找到。
UNASSIGNED: Treatment decisions in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) are mainly based on subjective evaluation of OCT. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to provide a comparison of qualitative and quantitative differences between OCT devices in a systematic manner.
UNASSIGNED: Prospective, cross-sectional study.
UNASSIGNED: One hundred sixty OCT volumes, 40 eyes of 40 patients with nAMD.
UNASSIGNED: Patients from clinical practice were imaged with 4 different OCT devices during one visit: (1) Spectralis Heidelberg; (2) Cirrus; (3) Topcon Maestro2; and (4) Topcon Triton. Intraretinal fluid (IRF), subretinal fluid (SRF), and pigment epithelial detachment (PED) were manually annotated in all cubes by trained human experts to establish fluid measurements based on expert-reader annotations. Intraretinal fluid, SRF, and PED volume were quantified in nanoliters (nL). Bland-Altman plots were created to analyze the agreement of measurements in the central 1 and 6 mm. The Friedman test was performed to test for significant differences in the central 1, 3, and 6 mm.
UNASSIGNED: Intraretinal fluid, SRF, and PED volume.
UNASSIGNED: In the central 6 mm, there was a trend toward higher IRF and PED volumes in Spectralis images compared with the other devices and no differences in SRF volume. In the central 1 mm, the standard deviation of the differences ranged from ± 3 nL to ± 6 nL for IRF, from ± 3 nL to ± 4 nL for SRF, and from ± 7 nL to ± 10 nL for PED in all pairwise comparisons. Manually annotated IRF and SRF volumes showed no significant differences in the central 1 mm.
UNASSIGNED: Fluid volume quantification achieved excellent reliability in all 3 retinal compartments on images obtained from 4 OCT devices, particularly for clinically relevant IRF and SRF values. Although fluid volume quantification is reliable in all 4 OCT devices, switching OCT devices might lead to deviating fluid volume measurements with higher agreement in the central 1 mm compared with the central 6 mm, with highest agreement for SRF volume in the central 1 mm. Understanding device-dependent differences is essential for expanding the interpretation and implementation of pixel-wise fluid volume measurements in clinical practice and in clinical trials.
UNASSIGNED: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.