Evaluates visual outcomes in diabetic macular edema, highlighting capillary density's predictive role.
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the predictability of baseline optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) metrics utilizing a specialized capillary–large vessel segmentation analysis framework in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) undergoing anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy. Methods: Forty-two treatment-naïve eyes with DME receiving three monthly loading anti-VEGF injections were included. Superficial capillary plexus (SCP) images from 3 × 3 mm OCTA scans were processed to isolate the capillary network from the large vessels via image processing. Vessel density and skeleton density were extracted for the total, large-vessel, and capillary components. Multiple linear and logistic regression models were used to identify independent predictors of post-treatment best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and “good visual outcome” (≥3-line improvement or final BCVA of 20/40 or better). Results: Following three monthly anti-VEGF injections, the mean BCVA significantly improved from 0.57 ± 0.36 to 0.37 ± 0.30 LogMAR (p < 0.0001), and the mean central retinal thickness decreased from 424.3 ± 117.7 μm to 316.9 ± 84.7 μm (p < 0.0001). The proportion of patients who achieved a good visual outcome was 73.8%. Baseline central retinal thickness was associated with baseline BCVA (p = 0.049) but not predictive of post-treatment BCVA (p = 0.38) or good visual outcomes (p = 0.79). Baseline capillary vessel density was identified as a significant independent predictor of post-treatment BCVA (p = 0.024), whereas total and large-vessel metrics were not. Capillary vessel density was also the only significant predictor of good visual outcomes (p = 0.044). Conclusions: Baseline capillary vessel density is a robust predictor of visual prognosis after anti-VEGF therapy in patients with DME, underscoring the importance of capillary network integrity in functional recovery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Huang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: