May 2004
Volume 45, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2004
The Clinical Outcome of Diabetic Patients with Microaneurysms Less than One Disc Diameter from the Foveal Centre.
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • B.A. Johnson
    Ophthalmology, Cheltenham General Hospital, Cheltenham, United Kingdom
  • C. Foy
    Gloucestershire NHS Trust, Gloucester, United Kingdom
  • L. Crawley
    Ophthalmology, Oxford Hospitals NHS trust, Oxford, United Kingdom
  • S. Asteriadis
    Ophthalmology, Cheltenham General Hospital, Cheltenham, United Kingdom
  • P. Scanlon
    Ophthalmology, Cheltenham General Hospital, Cheltenham, United Kingdom
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  B.A. Johnson, None; C. Foy, None; L. Crawley, None; S. Asteriadis, None; P. Scanlon, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  none
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2004, Vol.45, 4126. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      B.A. Johnson, C. Foy, L. Crawley, S. Asteriadis, P. Scanlon; The Clinical Outcome of Diabetic Patients with Microaneurysms Less than One Disc Diameter from the Foveal Centre. . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2004;45(13):4126.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose:To determine whether patients with microaneurysms within 1 optic disc diameter of the centre of the fovea (ma<1DD) and no other referable features of diabetic maculopathy can be safely screened on a yearly basis. Methods:1800 diabetic patients within Gloucestershire were examined by a senior ophthalmologist (PS). Of these 218 were noted to have ma<1DD in at least 1 eye. 13 patients were excluded because of inadequate follow–up. The study population was separated into two groups. Group one consisted of those patients that were referred by PS on the initial screening visit. Group two consisted of those patients that were not referred by PS. All diabetic patients in Gloucestershire have a unique identifying number on the hospital patient administration system. It was therefore possible to identify whether a patient in group two attended an ophthalmology clinic over the subsequent three years and examine their clinic notes. Patients in both groups were followed for three years and their notes examined. Several variables were analysed, however the main outcome measure was whether or not patients had photocoagulation for macular oedema during the follow–up period. Results:Group 1: Consisted of 18 (9.0% of the study population) patients. Of these, 10 (4.8%) were referred with diabetic maculopathy, the 8 (3.9%) remaining patients were referred for non–maculopathy problems. 7 (3.4%) of those referred at their initial visit with diabetic maculopathy received focal macular photocoagulation within the follow–up period. Group 2: Consisted of the remaining 187 patients. 31 patients were referred to ophthalmology clinics. Of these, 11 were found to have diabetic maculopathy following examination by an ophthalmologist and 10 (4.9% of the study population) of these patients received photocoagulation during the follow–up period. The average time between their first visit and macular photocoagulation for those patients was 24.1 (+/– 4.8 months). Conclusions:Macular photocoagulation is not commonly required for patients with ma <1DD. Patients with ma<1DD and no other referrable features of diabetic maculopathy rarely require macular photocoagulation within 2 years and therefore can be safely screened on a yearly basis.

Keywords: diabetes • clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: treatment/prevention assessment/controlled clinical trials • macula/fovea 
×
×

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.

×