RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To compare differences in the foveal avascular zone (FAZ) area, measured in the Superficial Vascular Complex (SVC), Deep Vascular Complex (DVC) and a combined analysis of both (SDVC), using two Spectral Domain OCT angiography (OCT-A) protocols, High Speed (HS) and High Resolution (HR). METHODS: A total of 26 eyes of diabetic patients, with and without macular oedema, were examined with two different fovea centered OCT-A volume scans. The two protocols were HS and HR volume scans, and the foveal avascular zone was manually measured in the SVC, DVC, and SDVC slabs by two masked investigators. Inter and intraoperator variability was analysed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and differences were compared between the HR and HS acquisitions throughout the different vascular slabs. RESULTS: Intraoperator variability was low in all slabs (ICC > 0.9) and interoperator variability was lower for HR (ICC 0.835-0.911) compared to HS (ICC between 0.604 and 0.865). Comparing HS and HR measurements for the same slab, the correlation was only moderate in SVC and DVC (ICC was 0.640 and 0.568 respectively) but was good in the SDVC (ICC = 0.823). FAZ area measurement in SDVC also showed the smallest bias (mean difference 0.009 mm2) and the narrowest limits of agreement (-0.175 to 0.193 mm2). CONCLUSIONS: Even in cases of diabetic macular oedema, when measuring the FAZ area, the reproducibility was better between HS and HR protocols when using the SDVC slab, compared to the SVC or DVC slabs alone. Further studies should evaluate the use of the combined SDVC slab for the FAZ assessment, compared to the SVC and DVC slabs alone, in the detection and progression of different retinal diseases.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: DNA methylation is involved in Diabetic Retinopathy progression showing a metabolic memory mechanism. However, the association of DNA methyltransferase with diabetic macular edema is still unknown. We aimed to describe the differences in DNA methyltransferase gene expression in patients with different diabetic macular edema responses. METHODS: A total of 27 diabetic patients, aged 59-90 years, were prospectively enrolled in this cross-sectional study. The participants were classified into control group (CG, n = 11), diabetic macular edema responders (rDME, n = 9) and non-responder diabetic macular edema (nrDME, n = 7) after anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment. Only cases with a complete ophthalmological examination, digital 133° color fundus, and SD-OCT assessments were used. After RNA extraction and first-strand cDNA synthesis, quantitative real-time PCR was performed with specific primers on the CFX Connect™ Real-Time PCR Detection System to assess differential transcriptional expression patterns. RESULTS: The DNMT1 gene showed a positive correlation (r = 0.617; p = 0.043) with Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) in CG, a positive correlation (r = 0.917; p = 0.010) with HbA1c in nrDME and a negative correlation (r = -0.659; p = 0.049) with GCL-IPL thickness in rDME. DNMT3A gene showed a positive correlation (r = -0.890; p = 0.001) with Sub-foveal Choroidal thickness in rDME whereas DNMT3b gene showed a negative correlation (r = -0.815; p = 0.007) with HbA1c and RNFL (r = -0.664; p = 0.026) in CG. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with similar metabolic profile risk factors showed associated DNA methyltransferase transcriptional expression patterns differences fitting with the anti-VEGF diabetic macular edema response. Further studies are needed to clarify if these results (1) reflect disease evolution, (2) translate the therapeutic impact, (3) or can help to predict the therapeutic resistance profile.
RESUMEN
Systematic reviews are analytic instruments that summarize the best available scientific evidence in order to provide evidence-based answers to clinically relevant questions. Meta-analyses are systematic reviews with a quantitative analysis of results. The process of conducting a systematic review is a rigorous and standardized procedure that includes: 1) formulating a clinically relevant question; 2) explicit selection of studies (primary or secondary) to be included in the review; 3) critical appraisal of the relevant evidence; 4) summarizing the evidence; and 5) statistical analysis of the results. In this paper we describe the steps involved in conducting a systematic review of scientific evidence, the methodology, and problems.