Purchase this article with an account.
R. Timm, M. Altaweel, A. Goulding, M. Webster, C. Kruse, E. Treichel, B. Zhang, M. Fleischli, Eyetech 1009 Study Group; Assessing AMD With Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT): Fast Macular Thickness Maps versus High Resolution Macular Thickness Maps . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2006;47(13):5716.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
To compare the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of Fast Macular Thickness Maps versus High Resolution Macular Thickness Maps obtained with OCT 3 (Zeiss Humphery) in clinical trial participants with Age–Related Macular Degeneration (AMD.)
29 participants enrolled in a phase II clinical trial of pegaptanib sodium for exudative AMD had OCT Fast Macular Thickness Maps and High Resolution Macular Thickness Maps obtained on the same day for 7 consecutive weeks. Quantitative measurements generated by both scan methods were compared. Scan quality was assessed to determine whether the data was reliable. The retinal map was reliable if a) six cross–sections were used to obtain the retinal map; b) the standard deviation of center point was ≤10%; c) macula was centered; d) ILM and RPE borders were correctly identified. If a map was deemed unreliable, a manual measurement of center point retinal thickness was obtained. All assessments were completed by certified OCT graders following standard procedures.
Nine visits were not used in analysis as a scan was missing. Five visits were of insufficient quality for grading. 189 OCT visits were analyzed. Only 5.3% of Fast Macular Thickness Maps had a center point standard deviation of ≥10% versus 38.1% of High Resolution Macular Thickness Maps. 4.8% of Fast Macular Thickness Maps and 3.2% of High Resolution Macular Thickness Maps had a macula incorrectly centered in the scans. Collating all quality data; 29.1% of Fast Macular Thickness Maps required a manual measurement of center point retinal thickness versus 48.7% of High Resolution Macular Thickness Maps. The intra–class correlation of center point retinal thickness was 0.899. Additionally, the intra–class correlation value for center subfield of retinal thickness was 0.925. Total volume comparison produced an intra–class correlation value of 0.949.
1.) OCT data generated by Fast Macular Thickness Maps and High Resolution Macular Thickness Maps correlated well in this study. 2.) However, the data generated by Fast Macular Thickness Maps is more likely to be reliable. 3.) In exudative AMD, a high proportion of OCT scans have quality problems that require a manual correction of retinal thickness data. 4.) Fast Macular Thickness Maps should be the standard method of obtaining retinal thickness data in AMD. 5.) High resolution scans are still required for assessment of retinal morphology
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only