Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Interpretation of SD-OCT imaging data in real-life conditions versus standardized reading centre analysis in eyes with diabetic macular oedema or macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion: 24-month follow-up of the ORCA study.
Spital, Georg; Schmitz-Valckenberg, Steffen; Müller, Bettina; Liczenczias, Erika; Chang, Petrus; Heimes-Bussmann, Britta; Ziemssen, Focke; Liakopoulos, Sandra.
Afiliação
  • Spital G; M3 Reading Centre, Eye Centre at the St. Franziskus Hospital, Münster, Germany.
  • Schmitz-Valckenberg S; GRADE Reading Centre, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
  • Müller B; Department of Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, John A. Moran Eye Centre, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
  • Liczenczias E; Novartis Pharma GmbH, Nuremberg, Germany.
  • Chang P; Novartis Pharma GmbH, Nuremberg, Germany.
  • Heimes-Bussmann B; GRADE Reading Centre, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
  • Ziemssen F; M3 Reading Centre, Eye Centre at the St. Franziskus Hospital, Münster, Germany.
  • Liakopoulos S; Centre for Ophthalmology, Eberhard Karls University, Tübingen, Germany.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39294392
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

As part of the prospective, non-interventional OCEAN study, the ORCA module evaluated physicians' spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) image interpretations in the treatment of diabetic macular oedema (DME) or macular oedema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO).

METHODS:

Presence of intraretinal fluid (IRF) and/or subretinal fluid (SRF) was evaluated independently by physicians and reading centres (RCs) on 1612 SD-OCT scans of 133 patients diagnosed with either DME or ME secondary to RVO. Agreement between physicians and RCs was calculated for both cohorts individually and as a combined ME cohort. Physicians' treatment decisions were analysed related to the results of the OCT-evaluations.

RESULTS:

For the combined ME cohort, presence of IRF/SRF was recorded by RCs in 792/1612 (49.1%) visits and by physicians in 852/1612 (52.9%) visits, with an agreement regarding presence or absence of foveal fluid in 70.4% of cases. In 64.4% (510/792) of visits with RC-detected foveal IRF and/or SRF no injection was given. In 30.3% of these visits with foveal fluid no reason was identified for a 'watch and wait' approach indicating possible undertreatment. BCVA deterioration was seen in a quarter of these eyes at the following visit.

CONCLUSION:

Despite good agreement between physicians and RCs to recognize SRF and IRF, our data indicate that omitting injections despite foveal involvement of fluid is frequent in routine clinical practice. This may put patients at risk of undertreatment, which may negatively impact real-life BCVA outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION www. CLINICALTRIALS gov , identifier NCT02194803.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Alemanha País de publicação: Alemanha

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Alemanha País de publicação: Alemanha