STELLATE MULTIFORM AMELANOTIC CHOROIDOPATHY: Clinical and Multimodal Imaging Features.

PURPOSE: To describe the clinical and multimodal imaging features of stellate multiform amelanotic choroidopathy (SMACH; also known as serous maculopathy due to aspecific choroidopathy). METHODS: Retrospective observational case series of eyes presenting with SMACH. Multimodal imaging including fundus photography, optical coherence tomography (OCT), OCT angiography (OCTA), and indocyanine green angiography (ICGA) was analyzed. RESULTS: Eighteen eyes from 18 patients (mean age: 28 ± 19 years) were included. The mean follow-up duration was 9 years. Ophthalmoscopy showed a yellowish orange, dendriform choroidal lesion. At presentation, subretinal fluid (SRF) was seen in 10 of 18 cases (56%). Eight patients (44%) showed no evidence of SRF during a mean follow-up of 6 years. Cross-sectional OCT showed hyperreflective fibrous-like changes within the inner choroid with choriocapillaris flow preservation on OCTA. En face OCT showed a hyperreflective choroidal lesion with finger-like projections oriented in a stellate configuration. On ICGA, SMACH showed early and late hypofluorescence. None of the cases showed lesion growth. CONCLUSION: SMACH seems to be a unilateral choroidopathy characterized by distinctive multimodal imaging features. As SRF was absent in some cases, while a dendriform pattern was a consistent finding in all eyes, the authors propose renaming this entity "stellate multiform amelanotic choroidopathy," a name that retains its previous abbreviation "SMACH."

Pneumatic Vitreolysis with Perfluoropropane for Vitreomacular Traction with and without Macular Hole: DRCR Retina Network Protocols AG and AH.

PURPOSE: To evaluate pneumatic vitreolysis (PVL) in eyes with vitreomacular traction (VMT) with and without full-thickness macular hole (FTMH). DESIGN: Two multicenter (28 sites) studies: a randomized clinical trial comparing PVL with observation (sham injection) for VMT without FTMH (Protocol AG) and a single-arm study assessing PVL for FTMH (Protocol AH). PARTICIPANTS: Participants were adults with central VMT (vitreomacular adhesion was ≤3000 µm). In Protocol AG, visual acuity (VA) was 20/32 to 20/400. In Protocol AH, eyes had a FTMH (≤250 µm at the narrowest point) and VA of 20/25 to 20/400. METHODS: Pneumatic vitreolysis using perfluoropropane (C3F8) gas. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Central VMT release at 24 weeks (Protocol AG) and FTMH closure at 8 weeks (Protocol AH). RESULTS: From October 2018 through February 2020, 46 participants were enrolled in Protocol AG, and 35 were enrolled in Protocol AH. Higher than expected rates of retinal detachment and tear resulted in early termination of both protocols. Combining studies, 7 of 59 eyes (12% [95% CI, 6%-23%]; 2 eyes in Protocol AG, 5 eyes in Protocol AH) that received PVL developed rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (n = 6) or retinal tear (n = 1). At 24 weeks in Protocol AG, 18 of 23 eyes in the PVL group (78%) versus 2 of 22 eyes in the sham group (9%) achieved central VMT release without rescue vitrectomy (adjusted risk difference, 66% [95% CI, 44%-88%]; P< 0.001). The mean change in VA from baseline at 24 weeks was 6.7 letters in the PVL group and 6.1 letters in the sham group (adjusted difference, -0.8 [95% CI, -6.1 to 4.5]; P = 0.77). In Protocol AH, 10 of 35 eyes (29% [95% CI, 16%-45%]) achieved FTMH closure without rescue vitrectomy at 8 weeks. The mean change in VA from baseline at 8 weeks was -1.5 letters (95% CI, -10.3 to 7.3 letters). CONCLUSIONS: In most eyes with VMT, PVL induced hyaloid release. In eyes with FTMH, PVL resulted in hole closure in approximately one third of eyes. These studies were terminated early because of safety concerns related to retinal detachments and retinal tears.

PNEUMATIC VITREOLYSIS FOR RELIEF OF VITREOMACULAR TRACTION.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the outcome of perfluoropropane (C3F8) gas injection for symptomatic vitreomacular traction (VMT) with or without Stage 2 macular hole (MH). METHODS: A retrospective review of eyes with VMT treated with 0.3 mL of C3F8 gas was performed. Patients avoided the supine position until gas resolution. Patients with small MH maintained partial face-down positioning. RESULTS: Forty-nine consecutive patients (50 eyes) with symptomatic VMT underwent pneumatic vitreolysis between 2010 and 2016. A posterior vitreous detachment developed in 43 eyes (86.0%) after a single gas injection, at a median of 3.0 weeks. Twenty-eight of 35 eyes (80.0%) with VMT only and all 15 eyes (100%) with a small Stage 2 MH developed a posterior vitreous detachment, with MH closure in 10 of 15 eyes (66.7%). Median baseline and last best spectacle-corrected visual acuities were 20/50 and 20/40, respectively (P < 0.001). Mean follow-up time was 11.1 ± 9.9 months. Rate of posterior vitreous detachment was reduced with presence of diabetes mellitus (25%) and with thick cellophane membrane (50%). Univariate analysis showed increased VMT release for eyes with VMT extent within 1 disk area (χ = 13.1, P = 0.002), eyes with absence of diabetes mellitus (χ = 8.8, P = 0.007), and eyes with Stage 2 MH (χ = 5.47, P = 0.019); there was a trend between success and lack of thick cellophane membrane (χ = 3.32, P = 0.068). Results using logistic regression also showed younger age (P = 0.012), followed by better baseline best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (P = 0.044), lack of diabetes mellitus (P = 0.077), and female gender (P = 0.045) to be predictors of increased VMT release. One VMT-only eye formed a MH and another VMT-only eye developed a retinal detachment. Both eyes responded to vitrectomy. CONCLUSION: Pneumatic vitreolysis with limited face-down position is a viable option for treating VMT with few adverse events. More studies are needed to elucidate its indications, benefits, and risks.

Home OCT Imaging for Newly Diagnosed Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Feasibility Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of daily Home OCT imaging among patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). DESIGN: Prospective observational study. PARTICIPANTS: Participants with ≥ 1 eye with previously untreated nAMD and visual acuity 20/20 to 20/320. METHODS: Participants meeting the ocular eligibility criteria were considered for enrollment; those who provided consent received a Notal Vision Home OCT device. Participants were instructed to scan both eyes daily. Retina specialists managed treatment according to their standard practice, without access to the Home OCT data. The presence of fluid detected by a reading center (RC) from in-office OCT scans was compared with fluid volumes measured by the Notal OCT Analyzer (NOA) on Home OCT images. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of participants meeting ocular eligibility criteria who participated in daily scanning, frequency and duration of scanning, proportion of scans eligible for fluid quantification, participant experience with the device, agreement between the RC and NOA fluid determinations, and characteristics of fluid dynamics. RESULTS: Among 40 participants meeting ocular eligibility criteria, 14 (35%) initiated self-scanning. Planned travel (n = 7, 17.5%) and patient-reported inadequate cell reception for the upload of images (n = 5, 12.5%) were the most frequent reasons for not participating. Considering scans of the study eye only, the mean (standard deviation) was 6.3 (0.6) for weekly scanning frequency and 47 (17) seconds for scan duration per eye. Among 2304 scans, 86.5% were eligible for fluid quantification. All participants agreed that scanning became easier over time, and only 1 did not want to continue daily scanning. For 35 scan pairs judged as having fluid by in-office OCT, the NOA detected fluid on 31 scans (89%). For 14 scan pairs judged as having no fluid on in-office OCT, the NOA did not detect fluid on 10 scans (71%). Daily fluid patterns after treatment initiation varied considerably between patients. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with nAMD who initiated home scanning, frequency and quality of scanning and accuracy of fluid detection were sufficient to assess the monitoring of fluid at home. Accommodations for travel and Wi-Fi connectivity could improve uptake of the Home OCT device. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Loculated subretinal fluid after pneumatic vitreolysis.

PURPOSE: To present, to the authors' knowledge, the first reported case of loculated subretinal fluid associated with pneumatic vitreolysis (PVL). OBSERVATIONS: A 74 year old female was followed for 9 months with vitreomacular traction (VMT) and 20/20 visual acuity in her right eye. Her visual acuity decreased at 9 months to 20/50 and she was treated with PVL. VMT release was successful on day 7. An isolated shallow pocket of loculated subretinal fluid developed inferotemporal to the fovea at one month after PVL and persisted for 14 months. The subretinal fluid eventually resolved at 14 months after PVL, and visual acuity improved to 20/30, and there were no electroretinographic abnormalities. CONCLUSION AND IMPORTANCE: Localized subretinal fluid is an unusual complication of PVL. No adverse visual outcome developed despite the persistent extrafoveal subretinal fluid in this case, and the subretinal fluid eventually resolved over a year after PVL.

Pneumatic Vitreolysis for Management of Symptomatic Focal Vitreomacular Traction.

Pneumatic vitreolysis (PVL) is the intravitreal injection of a small quantity of expansile gas for the purpose of achieving focal vitreomacular traction (VMT) release for eyes with symptomatic VMT, or inducing VMT release and closure of the macular defect for eyes with a small stage-2 macular hole (MH). Initially, there was limited interest in this technique upon its introduction for clinical treatment in human eyes in 1993. With the advent of optical coherence tomography allowing detailed observation of vitreomacular interface changes and rising importance of medical economics in recent years, there has been increasing interest in PVL, a low-cost procedure for managing symptomatic VMT. The success rates of VMT release in the literature have ranged from 60% to 100% and the rates of closure of small macular holes have ranged from 50% to 80% following PVL. In a recent retrospective consecutive series of 56 eyes in two centers undergoing C3F8 gas injection, Chan and Mein reported an overall success of 86% in VMT release and 60% closure of small macular holes with few adverse events (7% with retinal breaks, retinal detachment, or progression of VMT). Multiple recent studies have shown superior outcome utilizing C3F8 gas compared with SF6 gas for PVL. In conclusion, PVL is a promising, low-cost therapeutic option, with the potential for managing symptomatic focal VMT on a global scale.

Panretinal Photocoagulation Versus Ranibizumab for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: Patient-Centered Outcomes From a Randomized Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: To compare patient-centered outcomes in patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) treated with ranibizumab vs panretinal photocoagulation (PRP). DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. METHODS: Setting: Multicenter (55 U.S. sites). PATIENT POPULATION: Total of 216 adults with 1 study eye out of 305 adults (excluding participants with 2 study eyes, because each eye received a different treatment) with PDR, visual acuity 20/320 or better, no history of PRP. INTERVENTION: Ranibizumab (0.5 mg/0.05 mL) vs PRP. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change from baseline to 2 years in composite and prespecified subscale scores from the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25 (NEI VFQ-25), University of Alabama Low Luminance Questionnaire (UAB-LLQ), and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAIQ). RESULTS: For the NEI VFQ-25 and UAB-LLQ composite scores, ranibizumab-PRP treatment group differences (95% CI) were +4.0 (-0.2, +8.3, P = .06) and +1.8 (-3.5, +7.1, P = 0.51) at 1 year, and +2.9 (-1.5, +7.2, P = .20) and +2.3 (-2.9, +7.5, P = .37) at 2 years, respectively. Work productivity loss measured with the WPAIQ was 15.6% less with ranibizumab (-26.3%, -4.8%, P = .005) at 1 year and 2.9% (-12.2%, +6.4%, P = .54) at 2 years. Eighty-three ranibizumab participants (97%) were 20/40 or better in at least 1 eye (visual acuity requirement to qualify for an unrestricted driver's license in many states) at 2 years compared with 82 PRP participants (87%, adjusted risk ratio = 1.1, 95% CI: 1.0, 1.2, P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: Though differences in some work productivity and driving-related outcomes favored ranibizumab over PRP, no differences between treatment regimens for PDR were identified for most of the other patient-centered outcomes considered.