Assessing the Sensitivity of OCT-A Retinal Vasculature Metrics.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the sensitivity of quantitative metrics of the retinal vasculature derived from optical coherence tomography angiography (OCT-A) images. Methods: Full retinal vascular slab OCT-A images were obtained from 94 healthy participants. Capillary loss, at 1% increments up to 50%, was simulated by randomly removing capillary segments (1000 iterations of randomized loss for each participant at each percent loss). Thirteen quantitative metrics were calculated for each image: foveal avascular zone (FAZ) area, vessel density, vessel complexity index (VCI), vessel perimeter index (VPI), fractal dimension (FD), and parafoveal intercapillary area (PICA) measurements with and without the FAZ (mean PICA, summed PICA, PICA regularity, and PICA standard deviation [PICA SD]). The sensitivity of each metric was calculated as the percent loss at which 80% of the iterations for a participant fell outside of two standard deviations from the sample's normative mean. Results: The most used OCT-A metrics, FAZ area and vessel density, were not significantly different from normative values until 27.69% and 16.00% capillary loss, respectively. Across the remaining metrics, metric sensitivity ranged from 6.37% (PICA SD without FAZ) to 39.78% (Summed PICA without FAZ). Conclusions: The sensitivity of vasculature metrics for detecting random capillary loss varies substantially. Further efforts simulating different patterns of capillary loss are needed for comparison. Additionally, mapping the repeatability of metrics over time in a normal population is needed to further define metric sensitivity. Translational Relevance: Quantitative metrics vary in their ability to detect vascular abnormalities in OCT-A images. Metric choice in screening studies will need to balance expected capillary abnormalities and the quality of the OCT-A images being used.

Pupillary Dilation in Research: More than Meets the Eye.

Purpose: Pupil dilation is a commonly used procedure in vision research. While often considered a minimal risk procedure, there is the potential for significant adverse effects. Methods: Currently, there is variance in practices and protocols among researchers and institutions, perhaps due to a lack of guidelines for safe pupil dilation practices in research settings. In this perspective, we explore variables that can increase the potential for adverse effects and provide suggestions to limit their impact. Prior to dilation, an investigator can assess an individual's medical status and drug regimen when deciding upon a mydriatic agent to be used. Results: Assessing the angle through a variety of methods (i.e. penlight test, van Herick slit lamp, optical coherence tomography, gonioscopy) can also prevent inappropriate dilation of pupils with concerning anatomical features. During dilation, an investigator should look to limit the potential of infection and use caution in repeat dosing of dilation-resistant pupils. Conclusions: Post-dilation, an investigator should closely monitor eyes with elevated risk factors and improve an individual's health literacy on angle closure complications. When combined with proper informed consent processes regarding adverse effects, the aforementioned can allow for risk mitigation in studies using pupil dilation.

Characterizing Current Attitudes and Practices for Human Subject Safety in Studies Involving Pupil Dilation.

Standards in pupil dilation practices regarding the safety of human subjects are not present in vision research despite the potential for significant adverse effects. We developed two surveys to examine current practices around pupil dilation among vision researchers and individuals associated with oversight of human subjects research. While both groups note an absence of adverse events associated with pupil dilation, vision researcher practices differed with informed consent use and measures taken to minimize complications. For Institutional Review Boards, general risk assumption associated with dilation was not unanimous and there was a lack of specific guidance available to researchers for minimizing risk. These results uncover the need for standardized practices regarding pupil dilation in human subjects research.