- MYAH
A systematic prospective comparison of fluid volume evaluation across optical coherence tomography devices used in clinical practice
AUTHORS:
Kostolna K, Reiter G S, Frank S, Coulibaly L M, Fuchs P, Roggla V, Gumpinger M, Leitner Barrios G P, Vares V, Bogunovic H, Schmidt-Erfurth U.
PUBLICATION:
Ophthalmology Science (2024), DOI: 10.1016/j.xops.2023.100456
Study Purpose
To provide a comparison of qualitative and quantitative differences between OCT devices in a systematic manner.
Overview
Study Design
- Observational, cross-sectional study
# of Eyes/
Patients
• 40 eyes from 40 patients with nAMD
Study Device
- SD-OCT Spectralis® Heidleberg HRA +OCT (Heidelberg Engineering GmbH; Heidelberg, Germany)
- SD-OCT Cirrus® HD-OCT (Cirrus, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA)
- SD-OCT 3D OCT – 1 Maestro™2 (Topcon, Tokyo, Japan)
- SS-OCT DRI OCT Triton™ DRI OCT (Topcon, Tokyo, Japan)
Outcome Measures
• Total fluid volume (TFV) in nL of intraretinal fluid (IRF), subretinal fluid (SRF), pigment epithelial detachment (PED) in the central 1 mm and 6 mm.
Results
- Qualitative difference fluid volume: The B-scans from different devices vary in their signal-to-noise ratio, axial resolution, reflectivity, and contrast.
- In the central 1 mm, IRF, SRF, and PED volume measurements achieved excellent reliability between all four devices with an ICC of 0.988 (CI 0.980-0.993), 0.996 (CI 0.993 – 0.998) and 0.998 (CI 0.996–0.999), respectively. In the central 6 mm, IRF, SRF and PED volume also showed excellent reliability between all four devices with an ICC of 0.939 (CI 0.900 -0.965), 0.996 (CI 0.994- 0.998) and 0.997 (CI 0.996 – 0.999), respectively.
- Wider 6 mm area: There was a trend towards higher IRF volume measurements in Spectralis compared to Maestro, Cirrus, and Triton. The highest difference of means was calculated between Maestro and Spectralis (-20 nL, SD ± 51 nL), followed by Cirrus and Spectralis (-17 nL, SD ± 33 nL) and Triton and Spectralis (-15 nL, SD ± 40 nL). For SRF, there was no trend or bias in any of the pairwise comparisons, while PED volume showed high differences in all pairwise comparisons with a trend towards higher volume measurements in Spectralis compared to the three other devices.
IMOvifa reduced measurement time by
39%
Conclusions
• Fluid volume is quantifiable and comparable between Spectralis, Cirrus, and two Topcon OCTs (SD-OCT 3D OCT – 1 Maestro™2 and SS-OCT DRI OCT Triton™ DRI OCT) with excellent reliability with ICC values above 0.94 for all fluid compartments in the central 6m. • SRF volume is the fluid compartment with the highest agreement between different OCT manufacturers. • Compartments that trigger treatment decision with anti-VEGF are IRF and SRF and they showed no significant differences between any of the devices in the clinically significant central 1mm.
