CHOROIDAL NEOVASCULAR AREA AND VESSEL DENSITY COMPARISON BETWEEN TWO SWEPT-SOURCE OPTICAL COHERENCE TOMOGRAPHY...

To compare choroidal neovascularization (CNV) area and vessel density (VD) measurements between two different swept-source optical coherence tomography angiography (SS-OCTA) devices.

En face optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) images of patients affected by neovascular age-related macular degeneration were collected prospectively from two devices: Zeiss PLEX Elite 9000 (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA) and Topcon DRI OCT Triton SS-OCTA (Topcon, Tokyo, Japan). Choroidal neovascularization area and VD of images were measured and analyzed with ImageJ software by two readers to evaluate the agreement between two devices, with respect to different image size (3 × 3 and 6 × 6 mm) and different image segmentation (automatic vs. manual), and a Topcon equivalent Zeiss segmentation as control (i.e., the equivalent anatomical slab given by Topcon device on the Zeiss device).

A total of 30 eyes (30 patients) were analyzed. There was an excellent agreement between the two readers in CNV area measurements intraclass correlation coefficient >0.9 in all analyses. We found excellent agreement in CNV area measurements (manual and automatic segmentations) when comparing 3 × 3-mm or 6 × 6-mm images both for each single device and between the two devices (overall intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.9). Vessel density measurements between manual to automatic segmentation within the same device and same image size had a high intraclass correlation coefficient value, but there was a poor agreement in VD between different image sizes (3 × 3 mm vs. 6 × 6 mm) in the same device and also comparing the two devices (3 × 3 Topcon vs. 3 × 3 Zeiss; 6 × 6 Topcon vs. 6 × 6 Zeiss). There was a poor agreement between the Topcon equivalent Zeiss segmentation and all other segmentations.

There was an excellent agreement in CNV area measurements for both swept-source optical coherence tomography angiography devices in automatic and manual segmentations. However, the Topcon equivalent Zeiss segmentation was not comparable with any of the preset segmentations of Topcon and Zeiss devices. There was a poor agreement in CNV VD between different image size and different devices. For these reasons, it seems that, for accurate longitudinal analysis of VD, it is better to use the same device for each individual, even if both devices can be used interchangeably for CNV area measurements using automatic or manual segmentations.