Standardization of OCT Angiography Nomenclature in Retinal Vascular Diseases: First Survey Results

Abstract

To develop a consensus nomenclature for OCT angiography (OCTA) findings in retinal vascular diseases. Online survey using the Delphi Method. Members of The Retina Society, the European Society of Retina Specialists, and the Japanese Retina and Vitreous Society. 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. Consensus and near consensus on OCTA nomenclature. 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. 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.