A quantitative comparison of five optical coherence tomography angiography systems in clinical performance

Xin-Xin Li; Wei Wu; Hao Zhou; Jun-Jie Deng; Meng-Ya Zhao; Tian-Wei Qian; Chen Yan; Xun Xu; Su-Qin Yu

doi:10.18240/ijo.2018.11.09

A quantitative comparison of five optical coherence tomography angiography systems in clinical performance

Int J Ophthalmol. 2018 Nov 18;11(11):1784-1795. doi: 10.18240/ijo.2018.11.09. eCollection 2018.

Authors

Xin-Xin Li^{1

2

3}, Wei Wu⁴, Hao Zhou¹, Jun-Jie Deng^{1

2

3}, Meng-Ya Zhao^{1

2

3}, Tian-Wei Qian^{1

2

3}, Chen Yan¹, Xun Xu^{1

2

3}, Su-Qin Yu¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Ophthalmology, Shanghai General Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200080, China.
² Shanghai Key Laboratory of Ocular Fundus Disease, Shanghai 200080, China.
³ Shanghai Engineering Center for Visual Science and Photomedicine, Shanghai 200080, China.
⁴ Department of Mathematics, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich, Zurich 8092, Switzerland.

Abstract

Aim: To compare the clinical performance of 4 spectral-domain (SD) optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) systems: AngioVue™, AngioPlex™, Spectralis^® OCTA, AngioScan, and 1 swept-source (SS) OCTA SS OCT Angio™.

Methods: Twenty-seven undilated right eyes of 27 participants underwent OCTA examination using five different systems respectively for both 3×3 and 6×6 mm² scan pattern (Spectralis OCTA for 3×3 mm² scan only). Image quality, including vessel valid visibility and the number of motion artifacts, and acquisition time were evaluated. Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni's post-test and Friedman test with Dunn's post-test were used to compare measurements.

Results: The age of the subjects was 28.19±5.55y (range, 23-49y). The spherical equivalent refraction was -2.55±1.84 D (range, 0.00 to -5.25 D). Significant difference was observed in the evaluation of vessel valid visibility (AngioVue the highest: 0.111±0.031 for 3×3 mm² scan and 0.128±0.020 for 6×6 mm² scan), number of motion artifacts (AngioVue the fewest: 0.778±1.086 for 3×3 mm² scan and 0.333±0.620 for 6×6 mm² scan) and acquisition time (AngioPlex the shortest: 8.537±1.921s for 3×3 mm² scan and 8.298±1.741s for 6×6 mm² scan; all P<0.001).

Conclusion: There is poor agreement of measurements among systems. AngioVue provides images with the highest vessel valid visibility and the fewest motion artifacts. AngioPlex achieves the shortest acquisition.

Keywords: acquisition time; devices; motion artifacts; optical coherence tomography angiography; vessel valid visibility.