Advancing the visibility of outer retinal integrity in neovascular age-related macular degeneration with high-resolution OCT.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the visibility and accessibility of the outer retina in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) between 2 OCT devices. METHODS: In this prospective, cross-sectional exploratory study, differences in thickness and loss of individual outer retinal layers in eyes with nAMD and in age-matched healthy eyes between a next-level High-Res OCT device and the conventional SPECTRALIS OCT (both Heidelberg Engineering GmbH, Heidelberg, Germany) were analyzed. Eyes with nAMD and at least 250 nL of retinal fluid, quantified by an approved deep-learning algorithm (Fluid Monitor, RetInSight, Vienna, Austria), fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The outer retinal layers were segmented using automated layer segmentation and were corrected manually. Layer loss and thickness were compared between both devices using a linear mixed-effects model and a paired t test. RESULTS: Nineteen eyes of 17 patients with active nAMD and 17 healthy eyes were included. For nAMD eyes, the thickness of the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) differed significantly between the devices (25.42 µm [95% CI, 14.24-36.61] and 27.31 µm [95% CI, 16.12-38.50] for high-resolution OCT and conventional OCT, respectively; p = 0.033). Furthermore, a significant difference was found in the mean relative external limiting membrane loss (p = 0.021). However, the thickness of photoreceptors, RPE integrity loss, and photoreceptor integrity loss did not differ significantly between devices in the central 3 mm. In healthy eyes, a significant difference in both RPE and photoreceptor thickness between devices was shown (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Central RPE thickness was significantly thinner on high-resolution OCT compared with conventional OCT images explained by superior optical separation of the RPE and Bruch's membrane.

A Systematic Prospective Comparison of Fluid Volume Evaluation across OCT Devices Used in Clinical Practice.

Objective: Treatment decisions in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) are mainly based on subjective evaluation of OCT. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to provide a comparison of qualitative and quantitative differences between OCT devices in a systematic manner. Design: Prospective, cross-sectional study. Subjects: One hundred sixty OCT volumes, 40 eyes of 40 patients with nAMD. Methods: Patients from clinical practice were imaged with 4 different OCT devices during one visit: (1) Spectralis Heidelberg; (2) Cirrus; (3) Topcon Maestro2; and (4) Topcon Triton. Intraretinal fluid (IRF), subretinal fluid (SRF), and pigment epithelial detachment (PED) were manually annotated in all cubes by trained human experts to establish fluid measurements based on expert-reader annotations. Intraretinal fluid, SRF, and PED volume were quantified in nanoliters (nL). Bland-Altman plots were created to analyze the agreement of measurements in the central 1 and 6 mm. The Friedman test was performed to test for significant differences in the central 1, 3, and 6 mm. Main Outcome Measures: Intraretinal fluid, SRF, and PED volume. Results: In the central 6 mm, there was a trend toward higher IRF and PED volumes in Spectralis images compared with the other devices and no differences in SRF volume. In the central 1 mm, the standard deviation of the differences ranged from ± 3 nL to ± 6 nL for IRF, from ± 3 nL to ± 4 nL for SRF, and from ± 7 nL to ± 10 nL for PED in all pairwise comparisons. Manually annotated IRF and SRF volumes showed no significant differences in the central 1 mm. Conclusions: Fluid volume quantification achieved excellent reliability in all 3 retinal compartments on images obtained from 4 OCT devices, particularly for clinically relevant IRF and SRF values. Although fluid volume quantification is reliable in all 4 OCT devices, switching OCT devices might lead to deviating fluid volume measurements with higher agreement in the central 1 mm compared with the central 6 mm, with highest agreement for SRF volume in the central 1 mm. Understanding device-dependent differences is essential for expanding the interpretation and implementation of pixel-wise fluid volume measurements in clinical practice and in clinical trials. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.