Relative yield of retinal imaging versus clinical exam in following neovascular exudative age related macular degeneration

To compare therapeutic decisions between 3 diagnostic protocols and to assess the need for in-person physical doctor–patient encounter in follow up and treatment of neovascular exudative age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

Analysis of 88 eyes of 88 unique patients with neovascular AMD who were routinely followed at our medical retina clinic. A retinal specialist reviewed all images in advance and wrote his decisions. He later attended an in-person encounters with all patients and documented his decisions. Masking was done by not exposing any identifying information to the specialist and by randomizing patient’s images order before the in-person encounter. Therapeutic decisions regarding intravitreal injections intervals and agent selection were made based on three protocols: (1) optic coherence tomography (OCT); (2) OCT/Ultra-widefield (UWF) color image; (3) OCT/UWF/full clinical exam. Visual acuity (VA) was incorporated into all protocols.

We found an agreement of 93% between those protocols regarding the intervals of injections, and of 100% regarding injection agent selection. When comparing OCT, OCT/UWF and OCT/UWF/clinical exam guided decision making, there were no discrepancies between OCT and OCT/UWF. There were 6 out of 88 discrepancies (7%) between OCT/UWF and OCT/UWF/clinical exam. Of those 6 discrepancies, all were regarding intervals (Bland–Altman bias = − 0.2386). All discrepancies between OCT/UWF and OCT/UWF/Clinical exam were due to patients’ preferences, socioeconomic issues and fellow eye considerations, addressed during the face-to-face encounter with patients. Physical examination itself did not affect decision making.

Neovascular exudative AMD follow up and treatment decisions can be guided by VA and OCT, with UWF adding important information regarding macula and peripheral retina, but rarely affecting decision making. However, decision making may also be driven by patients’ preferences and other considerations that are being made only during the face-to-face visit and discussion. Thus, every approach supporting imaging only decision making, must take these factors into account.