May 2004
Volume 45, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2004
Multifocal ERG: a supplemental tool to follow patients treated with photodynamic therapy (PDT).
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • M.–J. Fredette
    Ophthalmology, Centre Hosp Univ Laval, Quebec, PQ, Canada
  • H. Shekavat
    Ophthalmology, Centre Hosp Univ Laval, Quebec, PQ, Canada
  • A. Sasseville
    Ophthalmology, Centre de Recherche du CHUL, Quebec, PQ, Canada
  • V. Grondin
    Ophthalmology, Centre de Recherche du CHUL, Quebec, PQ, Canada
  • G. Lalonde
    Ophthalmology, Centre Hosp Univ Laval, Quebec, PQ, Canada
  • M. Hebert
    Ophthalmology, Centre de Recherche du CHUL, Quebec, PQ, Canada
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  M. Fredette, None; H. Shekavat, None; A. Sasseville, None; V. Grondin, None; G. Lalonde, None; M. Hebert, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  Fondation R&D d'ophtalmologie du CHUQ, FRSQ Reseau Vision
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2004, Vol.45, 3174. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      M.–J. Fredette, H. Shekavat, A. Sasseville, V. Grondin, G. Lalonde, M. Hebert; Multifocal ERG: a supplemental tool to follow patients treated with photodynamic therapy (PDT). . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2004;45(13):3174.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose: The TAP–VIP studies have provided criteria to select AMD patients that would benefit from PDT. However, recent reports suggest that PDT could be beneficial in other form of CNV and other disease presenting with CNV. Therefore, we investigated, with the mfERG, 25 treated eyes from which 14 eyes were meeting the TAP–VIP criteria whereas 11 were not. Methods: MfERG recordings were obtained in non–dilated eyes (DTL fiber) in 23 patients (mean age : 67.4± 9.4 y.o.; 9M, 14F) tested before treatment and 1, 2 and 3 months post–PDT. Stimuli consisted of a matrix of 61 hexagons (mean luminance of 400 cd/m–2) with a bandpass set at 10–300 Hz and amplification 100,000X. Analysis were restricted to the 1st order kernel and peak time latency was assessed from the 0–5 degrees response average. Results: : The 25 treated eyes were split into responders (N=16) versus non–responders (N=9) based on improvement of at least 1.6 msec on the 0–5 degrees P1 latency observed within the first 3 months post treatment. Of the 16 responders, 9 (56.3%) met the VIP–TAP criteria. Interestingly, all 14 eyes that fitted the TAP–VIP criteria, showed either improvement in 0–5 degrees P1 latency (N=5), maintained visual acuity (N=5) or both (N=4). Of the 11 that did not fit TAP–VIP criteria, 6 (54.5%) showed improvement in both P1 latency and maintained visual acuity. All patients except one were retreated at 3 months because of leakage. Conclusions: Based on our relatively small sample size, it appears that photodynamic therapy with Visudyne may benefit a substantial number (55%) of patients that would not be considered for treatment according to TAP–VIP criteria. MfERG along with visual acuity might be useful to follow–up patient and detect those for whom treatment appears to show some benefits.

Keywords: age–related macular degeneration • electroretinography: clinical • photodynamic therapy 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×