Prevalence and Severity of OCTA Artifacts | Ophthalmic Imaging | JN Learning | AMA Ed Hub [Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]

Prevalence and Severity of Artifacts in Optical Coherence Tomographic Angiograms

Educational Objective
To identify the prevalence and type of artifacts in optical coherence tomographic angiography (OCTA) images associated with quantitative output and to analyze the role of proprietary quality indices in establishing image reliability.
1 Credit CME
Key Points

Question  What is the frequency of artifacts in optical coherence tomographic angiography images, and how are these artifacts identified?

Findings  In this cross-sectional study that included 406 optical coherence tomography angiography images of eyes with diabetic retinopathy, the prevalence of artifacts was 53.5%, with shadow, defocus, and movement seen as the most common artifacts. Proprietary quality indices commonly used for identifying unreliable images had a high sensitivity (99%) but low specificity (37% to 41%).

Meaning  Results of this study suggest that knowledge of optical coherence tomographic angiography artifacts may be important in accurately interpreting these images for patient care and in clinical trials.

Abstract

Importance  Artifacts can affect optical coherence tomographic angiography (OCTA) images and may be associated with misinterpretation of OCT scans in both clinical trials and clinical settings.

Objectives  To identify the prevalence and type of artifacts in OCTA images associated with quantitative output and to analyze the role of proprietary quality indices in establishing image reliability.

Design, Setting, and Participants  This cross-sectional study evaluated baseline OCTA images acquired in multicenter clinical trials and submitted to the Fundus Photograph Reading Center in Madison, Wisconsin, between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. Images were captured using the 3 mm × 3 mm and/or 6 mm × 6 mm scan protocol with commercially available OCTA systems. Artifacts, including decentration, segmentation error, movement, blink, refraction shift, defocus, shadow, Z offset, tilt, and projection, were given a severity grade based on involvement of cross-sectional OCT and area of OCT grid affected.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Prevalence and severity of OCTA artifacts and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of quality indices with image reliability.

Results  A total of 406 OCTA images from 234 eyes were included in this study, of which 221 (54.4%) were 6 mm × 6 mm scans and 185 (45.6%) were 3 mm × 3 mm scans. At least 1 artifact was documented in 395 images (97.3%). Severe artifacts associated with the reliability of quantitative outputs were found in 217 images (53.5%). Shadow (26.9% [109 images]), defocus (20.9% [85 images]), and movement (16.0% [65 images]) were the 3 most prevalent artifacts. Prevalence of artifacts did not vary with the imaging system used or with the scan protocol; however, the type of artifacts varied. Commercially recommended quality index thresholds had an AUC of 0.80 to 0.83, sensitivity of 97% to 99%, and specificity of 37% to 41% for reliable images.

Conclusions and Relevance  Findings from this study suggest that artifacts associated with quantitative outputs on commercially available OCTA devices are highly prevalent and that identifying common artifacts may require correlation with the angiogram and cross-sectional OCT scans. Knowledge of these artifacts and their implications for OCTA indices appears to be warranted for more accurate interpretation of OCTA images.

Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates

Buy This Activity

JN Learning™ is the home for CME and MOC from the JAMA Network. Search by specialty or US state and earn AMA PRA Category 1 CME Credit™ from articles, audio, Clinical Challenges and more. Learn more about CME/MOC

Article Information

Accepted for Publication: October 6, 2019.

Published Online: December 5, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2019.4971

Correction: This article was corrected on February 27, 2020, to fix Sri Meghana Konda’s name in the byline, where it had been incorrectly written as Meghana Sri Konda.

Corresponding Author: Amitha Domalpally, MD, PhD, Fundus Photograph Reading Center, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 310 N Midvale Blvd, Ste 205, Madison, WI 53717 (domalpally@wisc.edu).

Author Contributions: Dr Domalpally had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Holmen, Pak, Blodi, Stepien, Domalpally.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Holmen, Konda, McDaniel, Blodi, Stepien, Domalpally.

Drafting of the manuscript: Holmen, Stepien.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Holmen, McDaniel, Domalpally.

Obtained funding: Blodi, Domalpally.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Holmen, Pak, Blodi, Domalpally.

Supervision: Pak, Blodi, Stepien, Domalpally.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Funding/Support: This study was funded by an unrestricted grant from Research to Prevent Blindness to the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison (Drs Holmen, Pak, Blodi, Stepien, and Domalpally and Mr McDaniel).

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

References
1.
Spaide  RF, Klancnik  JM  Jr, Cooney  MJ.  Retinal vascular layers imaged by fluorescein angiography and optical coherence tomography angiography.  JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015;133(1):45-50. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.3616PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Zhang  A, Zhang  Q, Chen  CL, Wang  RK.  Methods and algorithms for optical coherence tomography-based angiography: a review and comparison.  J Biomed Opt. 2015;20(10):100901. doi:10.1117/1.JBO.20.10.100901PubMedGoogle Scholar
3.
Jia  Y, Tan  O, Tokayer  J,  et al.  Split-spectrum amplitude-decorrelation angiography with optical coherence tomography.  Opt Express. 2012;20(4):4710-4725. doi:10.1364/OE.20.004710PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Nesper  PL, Roberts  PK, Onishi  AC,  et al.  Quantifying microvascular abnormalities with increasing severity of diabetic retinopathy using optical coherence tomography angiography.  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2017;58(6):BIO307-BIO315. doi:10.1167/iovs.17-21787PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Rosen  RB, Andrade Romo  JS, Krawitz  BD,  et al.  Earliest evidence of preclinical diabetic retinopathy revealed using optical coherence tomography angiography perfused capillary density.  Am J Ophthalmol. 2019;203:103-115. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2019.01.012PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Agemy  SA, Scripsema  NK, Shah  CM,  et al.  Retinal vascular perfusion density mapping using optical coherence tomography angiography in normals and diabetic retinopathy patients.  Retina. 2015;35(11):2353-2363. doi:10.1097/IAE.0000000000000862PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Cole  ED, Ferrara  D, Novais  EA, Louzada  RN, Waheed  NK.  Clinical trial endpoints for optical coherence tomography angiography in neovascular age-related macular degeneration.  Retina. 2016;36(suppl 1):S83-S92 doi:10.1097/IAE.0000000000001338PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Ghasemi Falavarjani  K, Al-Sheikh  M, Akil  H, Sadda  SR.  Image artefacts in swept-source optical coherence tomography angiography.  Br J Ophthalmol. 2017;101(5):564-568. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-309104PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Spaide  RF, Fujimoto  JG, Waheed  NK.  Image artifacts in optical coherence tomography angiography.  Retina. 2015;35(11):2163-2180. doi:10.1097/IAE.0000000000000765PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Say  EAT, Ferenczy  S, Magrath  GN, Samara  WA, Khoo  CTL, Shields  CL.  Image quality and artifacts on optical coherence tomography angiography: comparison of pathologic and paired fellow eyes in 65 patients with unilateral choroidal melanoma treated with plaque radiotherapy.  Retina. 2017;37(9):1660-1673. doi:10.1097/IAE.0000000000001414PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Dolz-Marco  R, Freund  KB.  Directional changes in tissue reflectivity may influence flow detection on optical coherence tomography angiography.  Retina. 2018;38(4):739-747. doi:10.1097/IAE.0000000000001656PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Lauermann  JL, Woetzel  AK, Treder  M,  et al.  Prevalences of segmentation errors and motion artifacts in OCT-angiography differ among retinal diseases.  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2018;256(10):1807-1816. doi:10.1007/s00417-018-4053-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Zhang  Q, Zhang  A, Lee  CS,  et al.  Projection artifact removal improves visualization and quantitation of macular neovascularization imaged by optical coherence tomography angiography.  Ophthalmol Retina. 2017;1(2):124-136. doi:10.1016/j.oret.2016.08.005PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Tomlinson  A, Hasan  B, Lujan  BJ.  Importance of focus in OCT angiography.  Ophthalmol Retina. 2018;2(7):748-749. doi:10.1016/j.oret.2018.01.012PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Yu  S, Frueh  BE, Steinmair  D,  et al.  Cataract significantly influences quantitative measurements on swept-source optical coherence tomography angiography imaging.  PLoS One. 2018;13(10):e0204501. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0204501PubMedGoogle Scholar
16.
Ho  J, Sull  AC, Vuong  LN,  et al.  Assessment of artifacts and reproducibility across spectral- and time-domain optical coherence tomography devices.  Ophthalmology. 2009;116(10):1960-1970. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.03.034PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Sadda  SR, Wu  Z, Walsh  AC,  et al.  Errors in retinal thickness measurements obtained by optical coherence tomography.  Ophthalmology. 2006;113(2):285-293. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2005.10.005PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Ray  R, Stinnett  SS, Jaffe  GJ.  Evaluation of image artifact produced by optical coherence tomography of retinal pathology.  Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;139(1):18-29. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2004.07.050PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Domalpally  A, Danis  RP, Zhang  B,  et al.  Quality issues in interpretation of optical coherence tomograms in macular diseases.  Retina. 2009;29(6):775-781. doi:10.1097/IAE.0b013e3181a0848bGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Enders  C, Lang  GE, Dreyhaupt  J, Loidl  M, Lang  GK, Werner  JU.  Quantity and quality of image artifacts in optical coherence tomography angiography.  PLoS One. 2019;14(1):e0210505. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0210505PubMedGoogle Scholar
21.
World Medical Association.  World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects.  JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191-2194. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.281053Google ScholarCrossref
22.
Bressler  SB, Edwards  AR, Chalam  KV,  et al; Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network Writing Committee.  Reproducibility of spectral-domain optical coherence tomography retinal thickness measurements and conversion to equivalent time-domain metrics in diabetic macular edema.  JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014;132(9):1113-1122. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.1698PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Han  IC, Jaffe  GJ.  Evaluation of artifacts associated with macular spectral-domain optical coherence tomography.  Ophthalmology. 2010;117(6):1177-1189.e4. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.10.029PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Conti  FF, Young  JM, Silva  FQ, Rodrigues  EB, Singh  RP.  Repeatability of split-spectrum amplitude-decorrelation angiography to assess capillary perfusion density within optical coherence tomography.  Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2018;49(9):e9-e19. doi:10.3928/23258160-20180907-02PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Magrath  GN, Say  EAT, Sioufi  K, Ferenczy  S, Samara  WA, Shields  CL.  Variability in foveal avascular zone and capillary density using optical coherence tomography angiography machines in healthy eyes.  Retina. 2017;37(11):2102-2111. doi:10.1097/IAE.0000000000001458PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Lei  J, Durbin  MK, Shi  Y,  et al.  Repeatability and reproducibility of superficial macular retinal vessel density measurements using optical coherence tomography angiography en face images.  JAMA Ophthalmol. 2017;135(10):1092-1098. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.3431PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Chung  CS, Nesper  PL, Park  JJ, Fawzi  AA.  Comparison of Zeiss Cirrus and Optovue RTVue OCT angiography systems: a quantitative and qualitative approach examining the three capillary networks in diabetic retinopathy.  Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2018;49(11):e198-e205. doi:10.3928/23258160-20181101-18PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Shoji  T, Yoshikawa  Y, Kanno  J,  et al.  Reproducibility of macular vessel density calculations via imaging with two different swept-source optical coherence tomography angiography systems.  Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2018;7(6):31. doi:10.1167/tvst.7.6.31PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
If you are not a JN Learning subscriber, you can either:
Subscribe to JN Learning for one year
Buy this activity
jn-learning_Modal_Multimedia_LoginSubscribe_Purchase
Close
If you are not a JN Learning subscriber, you can either:
Subscribe to JN Learning for one year
Buy this activity
jn-learning_Modal_Multimedia_LoginSubscribe_Purchase
Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right
Close

Name Your Search

Save Search
Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
jn-learning_Modal_SaveSearch_NoAccess_Purchase
Close

Lookup An Activity

or

Close

My Saved Searches

You currently have no searches saved.

Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right
Close