ABSTRACT
Purpose: To analyze the efficacy of a deep learning (DL)?based artificial intelligence (AI)?based algorithm in detecting the presence of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and glaucoma suspect as compared to the diagnosis by specialists secondarily to explore whether the use of this algorithm can reduce the cross?referral in three clinical settings: a diabetologist clinic, retina clinic, and glaucoma clinic. Methods: This is a prospective observational study. Patients between 35 and 65 years of age were recruited from glaucoma and retina clinics at a tertiary eye care hospital and a physician’s clinic. Non?mydriatic fundus photography was performed according to the disease?specific protocols. These images were graded by the AI system and specialist graders and comparatively analyzed. Results: Out of 1085 patients, 362 were seen at glaucoma clinics, 341 were seen at retina clinics, and 382 were seen at physician clinics. The kappa agreement between AI and the glaucoma grader was 85% [95% confidence interval (CI): 77.55–92.45%], and retina grading had 91.90% (95% CI: 87.78–96.02%). The retina grader from the glaucoma clinic had 85% agreement, and the glaucoma grader from the retina clinic had 73% agreement. The sensitivity and specificity of AI glaucoma grading were 79.37% (95% CI: 67.30–88.53%) and 99.45 (95% CI: 98.03–99.93), respectively; DR grading had 83.33% (95 CI: 51.59–97.91) and 98.86 (95% CI: 97.35–99.63). The cross?referral accuracy of DR and glaucoma was 89.57% and 95.43%, respectively. Conclusion: DL?based AI systems showed high sensitivity and specificity in both patients with DR and glaucoma; also, there was a good agreement between the specialist graders and the AI system
ABSTRACT
Purpose: The study was conducted to compare the compliance to intravitreal injection treatment and follow?up in patients with center?involving diabetic macular edema (CI?DME) and treatment outcomes between a tertiary eye care facility and a tertiary diabetes care center. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted on treatment naïve DME patients who had received intravitreal anti?vascular endothelial growth factor (anti?VEGF) injections in 2019. Participants were people with type 2 diabetes who were under regular care at the eye care center or the diabetes care center in Chennai. The outcome measures were noted at months 1, 2, 3, 6, and 12. Results: A review of 136 patients treated for CI?DME (72 from the eye care center and 64 from a diabetes care center) was carried out. The severity of diabetic retinopathy (DR) was similar in both centers. There was no statistically significant (P > 0.05) difference in the choice of initial intravitreal drug in the two centers. At 12?month follow?up, only 29.16% came for a follow?up in the eye center vs. 76.56% in a diabetes care center (P = 0.000). The multivariate logistic regression showed increasing age was associated with non?compliance in both the groups (eye care center: odds ratio [OR] 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82–1.21; P = 0.044) and diabetes care center (OR 1.15; 95% CI 1.02–1.29; P = 0.020). Conclusion: The follow?up rate between eye care and diabetic care center with DME showed a significant disparity. By providing comprehensive diabetes care for all complications under one roof, compliance with follow?up can be improved in people with DME
ABSTRACT
Purpose: Emergency delirium (ED), a common postoperative neurologic complication, causes behavioral disturbances leading to self?traumas and also has long?term adverse effects in children. Our aim was to investigate the efficacy of a single?bolus dose of dexmedetomidine in reducing the incidence of ED. Additionally, pain relief, number of patients who needed rescue analgesia, hemodynamic parameters, and adverse events were assessed. Methods: One hundred and one patients were randomly allocated into two groups: 50 patients received 15 mL of dexmedetomidine 0.4 ?g/kg (group D) and 51 patients received volume?matched normal saline (group C). Hemodynamic parameters such as heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were monitored regularly throughout the procedure. ED was assessed with Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium Scale (PAEDS), and pain was measured using the modified Objective Pain Score (MOPS). Results: The incidences of ED and pain were higher in group C than group D (P < 0.0001 and P < 0.0001, respectively). Group D showed significant decrease in MOPS and PAEDS values at 5, 10, 15, and 20 min (P < 0.05), HR at 5 min (P < 0.0243), and SBP at 15 min (P < 0.0127). There was no significant difference in DBP between the two groups at any time point. The mean blood pressure (MBP) at 10 min was significantly less in group D than group C (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine 0.4 ?g/kg as a single bolus over 10 min immediately after intubation is effective for the prevention of ED and significantly reduces the need of rescue analgesia without compromising the hemodynamic parameters in children undergoing ophthalmic surgery.