Standardization of OCT Angiography Nomenclature in Retinal Vascular Diseases: First Survey Results
Standardization of OCT Angiography Nomenclature in Retinal Vascular Diseases: First Survey Results
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.oret.2020.12.022
复制
发表时间：
2021-09-24
影响因子：
4.5
通讯作者：
Tian, Meng
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Munk, Marion R.;Kashani, Amir H.;Tian, Meng
目的：为视网膜血管疾病的OCT血管造影（OCTA）结果制定一个共识命名法。设计：使用德尔菲法进行在线调查。参与者：视网膜学会、欧洲视网膜专家学会和日本视网膜和玻璃体学会的成员。方法：一份关于视网膜血管疾病中OCTA术语的在线问卷被发送给视网膜协会、欧洲视网膜专家协会、和日本视网膜和维生素协会。根据在这一领域的出版物数量，答复者被分为两组（"专家"和"用户"）。在OCTA和视网膜血管疾病领域发表5篇以上文章的受访者被认为是OCTA "专家" group.Main结果措施：共识和接近共识的OCTA nomenclements.Results：85视网膜专家的完整答复被纳入分析。其中31人被列为"专家"。"两组的共识是，OCTA参数，如中央凹无血管区（FAZ）参数，非灌注区和新生血管（NV）的存在，应在糖尿病视网膜病变（DR）的识别和分期中实施，OCTA可用于区分缺血性和非缺血性视网膜静脉阻塞（RVO）。糖尿病性黄斑缺血（Dmi）也可以通过OCTA评估。此外，一致认为术语应根据血管血流信号降低的根本原因而有所不同。在其他方面存在分歧，例如应使用哪些术语来描述不同原因引起的OCTA信号降低、宽视野OCTA的定义以及如何量化血流信号降低的范围和面积。这些差异形成的基础上，即将举行的专家德尔菲轮，旨在制定一个标准化的OCTA nomenclature. Conclusions：虽然有协议在某些领域，显着差异被发现在许多领域的OCTA术语之间的所有受访者，而且专家和用户群体之间。这表明需要在视网膜血管疾病领域的所有专家之间的命名标准化。(C)2020年，美国眼科学会。
Purpose: To develop a consensus nomenclature for OCT angiography (OCTA) findings in retinal vascular diseases.Design: Online survey using the Delphi Method.Participants: Members of The Retina Society, the European Society of Retina Specialists, and the Japanese Retina and Vitreous Society.Methods: An online questionnaire on OCTA terminology in retinal vascular diseases was sent to members of The Retina Society, the European Society of Retina Specialists, and the Japanese Retina and Vitreous Society. The respondents were divided into 2 groups ("experts" vs. "users") according to the number of their publications in this field. The respondents who had more than 5 publications in the field of OCTA and retinal vascular diseases were considered the OCTA "experts" group.Main Outcome Measures: Consensus and near consensus on OCTA nomenclature.Results: The complete responses of 85 retina specialists were included in the analysis. Thirty-one were categorized as "experts." There was a consensus in both groups that OCTA parameters such as foveal avascular zone (FAZ) parameters, areas of nonperfusion, and presence of neovascularization (NV) should be implemented in the identification and staging of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and that OCTA can be applied to differentiate between ischemic and nonischemic retinal vein occlusion (RVO). Diabetic macular ischemia (Dmi) also can be assessed via OCTA. Further, there was consensus that the terminology should differ on the basis of the underlying causes of decreased vascular flow signal. There was disagreement in other areas, such as which terms should be applied to describe decreased OCTA signal from different causes, the definition of wide-field OCTA, and how to quantify DMI and area of decreased flow signal. These discrepancies form the basis for the upcoming expert Delphi rounds that aim to develop a standardized OCTA nomenclature.Conclusions: Although there was agreement in some areas, significant differences were found in many areas of OCTA terminology among all respondents, but also between the expert and user groups. This indicates the need for standardization of the nomenclature among all specialists in the field of retinal vascular diseases. (C) 2020 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.