Purchase this article with an account.
Yifan Lu, Jay C Wang, Rebecca Zeng, Demetrios Vavvas, Joan W Miller, John B Miller; Quantitative comparison of three optical coherence tomography angiography devices in chorioretinal disease. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2019;60(9):3002. doi: https://doi.org/.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
Optical coherence tomography angiography (OCT-A) has emerged as a novel tool for non-invasive imaging and evaluation of the retinal microvasculature. There is little existing literature that compares OCT-A metrics across different OCT-A devices in chorioretinal diseases. The aim of this study was to compare OCT-A metrics from three OCT-A platforms: Optovue RTVue-XR, Topcon DRI-OCT Triton Swept-Source OCT, and Zeiss Cirrus 5000-HD-OCT Angioplex.
Subjects were scanned on each of the three OCT-A devices. Two investigators independently measured foveal avascular zone (FAZ) area. Superficial capillary plexus (SCP) and deep capillary plexus (DCP) vessel densities (VD) were calculated from binarized images utilizing ImageJ software. Interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and repeated measures ANOVA were performed for statistical analysis.
Thirteen eyes of seven patients with various chorioretinal diseases, including age-related macular degeneration, central serous retinopathy, and macular telangiectasia type 2 were reviewed. ICC for FAZ measurement was 0.95. There was no significant difference in FAZ area across the three devices (p= 0.792). There was a significant difference in the SCP VD between all of the OCT-A devices (Triton 0.34 + 0.013, Optovue 0.32 + 0.013, Zeiss 0.37 + 0.014, p < 0.001). Significantly greater DCP VD was observed with Zeiss (0.385 + 0.01, p < 0.001) in comparison to both Triton (0.33 + 0.009) and Optovue (0.34 + 0.02).
There are several core macular microvasculature metrics now readily available on a variety of available OCT-A devices. While the FAZ can be reliably measured across all three devices in this study, there were significant differences for the vessel density in both the SVP and DVP. As a result, clinicians should be careful when comparing SVP and DVP across different devices.
This abstract was presented at the 2019 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Vancouver, Canada, April 28 - May 2, 2019.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only