One-field, two-field and five-field handheld retinal imaging compared with standard seven-field Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study photography for diabetic retinopathy screening.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To determine agreement of one-field (1F, macula-centred), two-field (2F, disc-macula) and five-field (5F, macula, disc, superior, inferior and nasal) mydriatic handheld retinal imaging protocols for the assessment of diabetic retinopathy (DR) as compared with standard seven-field Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) photography. METHODS: Prospective, comparative instrument validation study. Mydriatic retinal images were taken using three handheld retinal cameras: Aurora (AU; 50° field of view (FOV), 5F), Smartscope (SS; 40° FOV, 5F), and RetinaVue (RV; 60° FOV, 2F) followed by ETDRS photography. Images were evaluated at a centralised reading centre using the international DR classification. Each field protocol (1F, 2F and 5F) was graded independently by masked graders. Weighted kappa (Kw) statistics assessed agreement for DR. Sensitivity (SN) and specificity (SP) for referable diabetic retinopathy (refDR; moderate non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) or worse, or ungradable images) were calculated. RESULTS: Images from 225 eyes of 116 patients with diabetes were evaluated. Severity by ETDRS photography: no DR, 33.3%; mild NPDR, 20.4%; moderate, 14.2%; severe, 11.6%; proliferative, 20.4%. Ungradable rate for DR: ETDRS, 0%; AU: 1F 2.23%, 2F 1.79%, 5F 0%; SS: 1F 7.6%, 2F 4.0%, 5F 3.6%; RV: 1F 6.7%, 2F 5.8%. Agreement rates of DR grading between handheld retinal imaging and ETDRS photography were (Kw, SN/SP refDR) AU: 1F 0.54, 0.72/0.92; 2F 0.59, 0.74/0.92; 5F 0.75, 0.86/0.97; SS: 1F 0.51, 0.72/0.92; 2F 0.60, 0.75/0.92; 5F 0.73, 0.88/0.92; RV: 1F 0.77, 0.91/0.95; 2F 0.75, 0.87/0.95. CONCLUSION: When using handheld devices, the addition of peripheral fields decreased the ungradable rate and increased SN and SP for refDR. These data suggest the benefit of additional peripheral fields in DR screening programmes that use handheld retinal imaging.

Comparisons of Handheld Retinal Imaging with Optical Coherence Tomography for the Identification of Macular Pathology in Patients with Diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: Handheld retinal imaging cameras are relatively inexpensive and highly portable devices that have the potential to significantly expand diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening, allowing a much broader population to be evaluated. However, it is essential to evaluate if these devices can accurately identify vision-threatening macular diseases if DR screening programs will rely on these instruments. Thus, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the detection of diabetic macular pathology using monoscopic macula-centered images using mydriatic handheld retinal imaging compared with spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SDOCT). METHODS: Mydriatic 40°-60° macula-centered images taken with 3 handheld retinal imaging devices (Aurora [AU], SmartScope [SS], RetinaVue 700 [RV]) were compared with the Cirrus 6000 SDOCT taken during the same visit. Images were evaluated for the presence of diabetic macular edema (DME) on monoscopic fundus photographs adapted from Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) definitions (no DME, noncenter-involved DME [non-ciDME], and center-involved DME [ciDME]). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated for each device with SDOCT as gold standard. RESULTS: Severity by ETDRS photos: no DR 33.3%, mild NPDR 20.4%, moderate 14.2%, severe 11.6%, proliferative 20.4%, and ungradable for DR 0%; no DME 83.1%, non-ciDME 4.9%, ciDME 12.0%, and ungradable for DME 0%. Gradable images by SDOCT (N = 217, 96.4%) showed no DME in 75.6%, non-ciDME in 9.8%, and ciDME in 11.1%. The ungradable rate for images (poor visualization in >50% of the macula) was AU: 0.9%, SS: 4.4%, and RV: 6.2%. For DME, sensitivity and specificity were similar across devices (0.5-0.64, 0.93-0.97). For nondiabetic macular pathology (ERM, pigment epithelial detachment, traction retinal detachment) across all devices, sensitivity was low to moderate (0.2-0.5) but highly specific (0.93-1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to SDOCT, handheld macular imaging attained high specificity but low sensitivity in identifying macular pathology. This suggests the importance of SDOCT evaluation for patients suspected to have DME on fundus photography, leading to more appropriate referral refinement.

Factors Affecting Predominantly Peripheral Lesion Identification and Grading.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine factors affecting predominantly peripheral lesion (PPL) grading, such as qualitative versus quantitative assessment, device type, and severity of diabetic retinopathy (DR) in ultrawide field color images (UWF-CIs). Methods: Patients with DR had UWF-CI qualitatively graded for PPL using standardized techniques and had hemorrhages/microaneurysms (H/Mas) individually annotated for quantitative PPL grading on two different ultrawide field devices. Results: Among 791 eyes of 481 patients, 38.2% had mild nonproliferative DR (NPDR), 34.7% had moderate NPDR, and 27.1% had severe NPDR to proliferative DR (PDR). The overall agreement between qualitative and quantitative PPL grading was moderate (ĸ = 0.423, P < 0.001). Agreement rates were fair in eyes with mild NPDR (ĸ = 0.336, P < 0.001) but moderate in eyes with moderate NPDR (ĸ = 0.525, P < 0.001) and severe NPDR-PDR (ĸ = 0.409, P < 0.001). Increasing thresholds for quantitative PPL determination improved agreement rates, with peak agreements at H/Ma count differences of six for mild NPDR, five for moderate NPDR, and nine for severe NPDR-PDR. Based on ultrawide field device type (California = 412 eyes vs. 200Tx = 379 eyes), agreement between qualitative and quantitative PPL grading was moderate for all DR severities in both devices (ĸ = 0.369-0.526, P < 0.001) except for mild NPDR on the 200Tx, which had poor agreement (ĸ = 0.055, P = 0.478). Conclusions: Determination of PPL varies between standard qualitative and quantitative grading and is dependent on NPDR severity, device type, and magnitude of lesion differences used for quantitative assessment. Translational Relevance: Prior UWF studies have not accounted for imaging and grading factors that affect PPL, such factors need to be reviewed when assessing thresholds for DR progression rates.

Automated Microaneurysm Counts on Ultrawide Field Color and Fluorescein Angiography Images.

BACKGROUND: The severity and extent of microaneurysms (MAs) have been used to determine diabetic retinopathy (DR) severity and estimate the risk of DR progression over time. The recent introduction of ultrawide field (UWF) imaging has allowed ophthalmologists to readily image nearly the entire retina. Manual counting of MAs, especially on UWF images, is laborious and time-consuming, limiting its potential use in clinical settings. Automated MA counting techniques are potentially more accurate and reproducible compared to manual methods. METHOD: Review of available literature on current techniques of automated MA counting techniques on both ultrawide field (UWF) color images (CI) and fluorescein angiography (FA) images. RESULTS: Automated MA counting techniques on UWF images are still in the early phases of development with UWF-FA counts being further along. Early studies have demonstrated that these techniques are accurate and reproducible. CONCLUSION: Automated techniques may be an appropriate option for detecting and quantifying MAs on UWF images, especially in eyes with earlier DR severity. Larger studies are needed to appropriately validate these techniques and determine if they add substantially to clinical practice compared to standard DR grading.

Interaction Between the Distribution of Diabetic Retinopathy Lesions and the Association of Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography Scans With Diabetic Retinopathy Severity.

Importance: Studies have not yet determined whether the distribution of lesions in the retinal periphery alters the association between the severity of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and macular vessel density. Objective: To evaluate the association of DR lesion distribution with optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) metrics and DR severity. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional observational study was conducted at a tertiary care center for diabetic eye disease among 225 patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes who had undergone imaging between February 15, 2016, and December 31, 2019. Exposures: Optical coherence tomography angiography 3 × 3-mm macular scans and ultra-widefield color imaging. Main Outcomes and Measures: Optical coherence tomography angiography vessel density in the superficial capillary plexus, intermediate capillary plexus, and deep capillary plexus and choriocapillaris flow density. The severity of DR and the predominantly peripheral lesions (PPL) were evaluated from ultra-widefield color imaging. Results: The study evaluated 352 eyes (225 patients; 125 men [55.6%]; mean [SD] age, 52.1 [15.1] years), of which 183 eyes (52.0%) had mild nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR), 71 eyes (20.2%) had moderate NPDR, and 98 eyes (27.8%) had severe NPDR or proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). In eyes with no PPL (209 [59.4%]), the mean (SD) vessel density in the superficial capillary plexus (mild NPDR, 38.1% [4.7%]; moderate NPDR, 36.4% [4.6%]; severe NPDR or PDR, 34.1% [4.1%]; P < .001) and the deep capillary plexus (mild NPDR, 45.8% [3.0%]; moderate NPDR, 45.8% [2.2%]; severe NPDR or PDR, 44.5% [1.9%]; P = .002), as well as the mean (SD) choriocapillaris flow density (mild NPDR, 69.7% [6.2%]; moderate NPDR, 67.6% [5.6%]; severe NPDR or PDR, 67.1% [5.6%]; P = .01), decreased with increasing DR severity. These associations remained statistically significant even after correcting for age, signal strength index, spherical equivalent, duration of diabetes, type of diabetes, and correlation between eyes of the same patient. In eyes with PPL (143 [40.6%]), mean (SD) vessel density in the superficial capillary plexus (mild NPDR, 34.1% [4.1%]; moderate NPDR, 35.2% [4.1%]; severe NPDR or PDR, 36.0% [4.3%]; P = .42) and the deep capillary plexus (mild NPDR, 44.5% [1.7%]; moderate NPDR, 45.4% [1.4%]; severe NPDR or PDR, 44.9% [1.5%]; P = .81), as well as the mean (SD) choriocapillaris flow density (mild NPDR, 67.1% [5.6%]; moderate NPDR, 69.3% [4.6%]; severe NPDR or PDR, 68.3% [5.6%]; P = .49), did not appear to change with increasing DR severity. Conclusions and Relevance: These results suggest that central retinal vessel density is associated with DR severity in eyes without, but not with, PPL. These findings suggest a potential need to stratify future optical coherence tomography angiography studies of eyes with DR by the presence or absence of PPL. If DR onset and worsening are associated with the location of retinal nonperfusion, assessment of global retinal nonperfusion using widefield angiography may improve the ability to evaluate DR severity and risk of DR worsening over time.

Differential Efficacy of Combined Phacoemulsification and Endocyclophotocoagulation in Open-angle Glaucoma Versus Angle-closure Glaucoma.

PRéCIS:: This retrospective study found that combined phacoemulsification and endocyclophotocoagulation reduced intraocular pressure (IOP) to a greater degree in angle-closure glaucoma versus open-angle glaucoma and was effective for all stages of glaucoma. PURPOSE: Endocyclophotocoagulation (ECP) laser treatment of the ciliary processes is believed to decrease IOP by reducing aqueous production. Anecdotal experience in angle-closure glaucoma suggests that it may also lower IOP by opening the drainage angle to promote aqueous outflow. This study sought to evaluate combined phacoemulsification and ECP (phaco/ECP) in eyes with different types and stages of glaucoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A Retrospective chart review of eyes that underwent phaco/ECP between October 2010 and December 2016 at one institution was conducted. RESULTS: In 63 eyes of 63 patients with an average of 3.0±1.7 years of follow-up, the 22 eyes with chronic angle-closure glaucoma (CACG) had greater IOP reduction and medication reduction than the 41 eyes with primary open-angle glaucoma at both 1 year (6.4 vs. 2.1 mm Hg, P=0.01; 0.9 vs. 0.2 medications, P=0.04) and final follow-up (6.2 vs. 2.4 mm Hg, P=0.02; 0.9 vs. 0.3 medications, P=0.05). There was no difference in IOP reduction or medication reduction for eyes with mild, moderate, or advanced glaucoma at both 1 year (3.5, 3.9, 0.5 mm Hg, respectively, P=0.18; 0.3, 0.6, 0.4 medications, P=0.58) and final follow-up (3.3, 4.8, 0.7 mm Hg, P=0.11; 0.1, 0.8, 0.4 medications, P=0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Eyes with CACG were more responsive to phaco/ECP in terms of IOP and medication reduction compared with eyes with primary open-angle glaucoma. This finding could be partially or entirely due to concurrent cataract extraction and greater CACG preoperative IOP. Phaco/ECP was effective in all stages of glaucoma.