Comparison of multifocal visual evoked potential,standard automated perimetry and optical coherence tomography in assessing visual pathway in multiple sclerosis patients
Available accessOtherFirst published online April, 2010
Comparison of multifocal visual evoked potential,standard automated perimetry and optical coherence tomography in assessing visual pathway in multiple sclerosis patients
Background: Multifocal visual evoked potentials (mfVEP) measure local response amplitude and latency in the field of vision.
Objective: To compare the sensitivity of mfVEP, Humphrey visual field (HVF) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) in detecting visual abnormality in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients.
Methods: mfVEP, HVF, and OCT (retinal nerve fiber layer [RNFL]) were performed in 47 MS-ON eyes (last optic neuritis [ON] attack ≥6 months prior) and 65 MS-no-ON eyes without ON history. Criteria to define an eye as abnormal were: (1) mfVEP amplitude/latency — either amplitude or latency probability plots meeting cluster criteria with 95% specificity; (2) mfVEP amplitude or latency alone (specificity: 97% and 98%, respectively); and (3) HVF and OCT, mean deviation and RNFL thickness meeting p < 0.05, respectively.
Results: MfVEP (amplitude/latency) identified more abnormality in MS-ON eyes (89%) than HVF (72%), OCT (62%), mfVEP amplitude (66%) or latency (67%) alone. Eighteen percent of MS-no-ON eyes were abnormal for both mfVEP (amplitude/latency) and HVF compared with 8% with OCT. Agreement between tests ranged from 60% to 79%. mfVEP (amplitude/latency) categorized an additional 15% of MS-ON eyes as abnormal compared with HVF and OCT combined. Conclusions: mfVEP, which detects both demyelination (increased latency) and neural degeneration (reduced amplitude), revealed more abnormality than HVF or OCT in MS patients.
Comi G., Filippi M., Barkhof F., et al. Effect of early interferon treatment on conversion to definite multiple sclerosis: a randomised study. Lancet2001; 357: 1576-1582.
2.
Kappos L., Freedman MS, Polman CH, et al. Effect of early versus delayed interferon beta-1b treatment on disability after a first clinical event suggestive of multiple sclerosis: a 3-year follow-up analysis of the BENEFIT study. Lancet2007; 370: 389-397.
3.
Jacobs LD, Beck RW, Simon JH, et al. Intramuscular interferon beta-1a therapy initiated during a first demyelinating event in multiple sclerosis. CHAMPS Study Group. N Engl J Med2000; 343: 898-904.
4.
Kappos L., Polman CH, Freedman MS, et al. Treatment with interferon beta-1b delays conversion to clinically definite and McDonald MS in patients with clinically isolated syndromes. Neurology2006; 67: 1242-1249.
5.
Compston A., Coles A.Multiple sclerosis. Lancet2008; 372: 1502-1517.
6.
DeAngelis T., Lublin F.Neurotherapeutics in multiple sclerosis: novel agents and emerging treatment strategies. Mt Sinai J Med2008; 75: 157-167.
7.
Imitola J., Chitnis T., Khoury SJInsights into the molecular pathogenesis of progression in multiple sclerosis: potential implications for future therapies. Arch Neurol2006; 63: 25-33.
8.
Beck RW, Trobe JD, Moke PS, et al. High- and low-risk profiles for the development of multiple sclerosis within 10 years after optic neuritis: experience of the optic neuritis treatment trial. Arch Ophthalmol2003; 121: 944-949.
9.
McDonald WI, Barnes D.The ocular manifestations of multiple sclerosis. 1. Abnormalities of the afferent visual system. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry1992; 55: 747-752.
10.
Sorensen TL , Frederiksen JL, Bronnum-Hansen H., Petersen HCOptic neuritis as onset manifestation of multiple sclerosis: a nationwide, long-term survey . Neurology1999; 53: 473-478.
11.
Huang D., Swanson EA, Lin CP, et al. Optical coherence tomography. Science1991; 254: 1178-1181.
12.
Budenz DL, Chang RT, Huang X., Knighton RW, Tielsch JMReproducibility of retinal nerve fiber thickness measurements using the stratus OCT in normal and glaucomatous eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2005; 46: 2440-2443.
13.
Costello F. , Coupland S., Hodge W., et al. Quantifying axonal loss after optic neuritis with optical coherence tomography. Ann Neurol2006; 59: 963-969.
14.
Frohman EM, Fujimoto JG, Frohman TC, Calabresi PA, Cutter G., Balcer LJOptical coherence tomography: a window into the mechanisms of multiple sclerosis . Nat Clin Pract Neurol2008; 4: 664-675.
15.
Gordon-Lipkin E., Chodkowski B., Reich DS, et al. Retinal nerve fiber layer is associated with brain atrophy in multiple sclerosis. Neurology2007; 69: 1603-1609.
16.
Kallenbach K., Frederiksen J.Optical coherence tomography in optic neuritis and multiple sclerosis: a review. Eur J Neurol2007; 14: 841-849.
17.
Noval S., Contreras I., Rebolleda G., Munoz-Negrete FJOptical coherence tomography versus automated perimetry for follow-up of optic neuritis. Acta Ophthalmol Scand2006; 84: 790-794.
18.
Sergott RC, Frohman E., Glanzman R., Al-Sabbagh A.The role of optical coherence tomography in multiple sclerosis: expert panel consensus. J Neurol Sci2007; 263: 3-14.
19.
Zaveri MS, Conger A., Salter A., et al. Retinal imaging by laser polarimetry and optical coherence tomography evidence of axonal degeneration in multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol2008; 65: 924-928.
20.
Parisi V., Manni G., Spadaro M., et al. Correlation between morphological and functional retinal impairment in multiple sclerosis patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci1999; 40: 2520-2527.
21.
Cheng H., Laron M., Schiffman JS, Tang RA, Frishman LJThe relationship between visual field and retinal nerve fiber layer measurements in patients with multiple sclerosis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2007; 48: 5798-5805.
22.
Harwerth RS , Vilupuru AS, Rangaswamy NV, Smith 3rd EL. The relationship between nerve fiber layer and perimetry measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2007; 48: 763-773.
23.
Kanamori A. , Naka M., Nagai-Kusuhara A., Yamada Y., Nakamura M., Negi A.Regional relationship between retinal nerve fiber layer thickness and corresponding visual field sensitivity in glaucomatous eyes. Arch Ophthalmol2008; 126: 1500-1506.
24.
Bjerre A., Grigg JR, Parry NR, Henson DBTest-retest variability of multifocal visual evoked potential and SITA standard perimetry in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2004; 45: 4035-4040.
25.
Chen CS, Hood DC, Zhang X., et al. Repeat reliability of the multifocal visual evoked potential in normal and glaucomatous eyes. J Glaucoma2003; 12: 399-408.
26.
Fortune B., Demirel S., Zhang X., Hood DC, Johnson CARepeatability of normal multifocal VEP: implications for detecting progression . J Glaucoma2006; 15: 131-141.
27.
Goldberg I. , Graham SL, Klistorner AIMultifocal objective perimetry in the detection of glaucomatous field loss. Am J Ophthalmol2002; 133: 29-39.
28.
Grover LK, Hood DC, Ghadiali Q., et al. A comparison of multifocal and conventional visual evoked potential techniques in patients with optic neuritis/multiple sclerosis. Doc Ophthalmol2008; 117: 121-128.
29.
Klistorner A., Fraser C., Garrick R., Graham S., Arvind H.Correlation between full-field and multifocal VEPs in optic neuritis. Doc Ophthalmol2008 ; 116: 19-27.
30.
Pakrou N., Casson R., Kaines A., Selva D.Multifocal objective perimetry compared with Humphrey full-threshold perimetry in patients with optic neuritis. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol2006; 34: 562-567.
31.
Fraser C., Klistorner A., Graham S., Garrick R., Billson F., Grigg J.Multifocal visual evoked potential latency analysis: predicting progression to multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol2006; 63: 847-850.
32.
Klistorner A., Arvind H., Nguyen T., et al. Fellow eye changes in optic neuritis correlate with the risk of multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler2009; 15: 928-932.
33.
Klistorner A., Arvind H., Nguyen T., et al. Axonal loss and myelin in early ON loss in postacute optic neuritis. Ann Neurol2008; 64: 325-331.
34.
Freedman MS , Thompson EJ, Deisenhammer F., et al. Recommended standard of cerebrospinal fluid analysis in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: a consensus statement . Arch Neurol2005; 62: 865-870.
35.
McDonald WI , Compston A., Edan G., et al. Recommended diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines from the International Panel on the Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis. Ann Neurol2001; 50: 121-127.
36.
Laron M., Cheng H., Zhang B., Schiffman JS, Tang RA, Frishman LJAssessing visual pathway function in multiple sclerosis patients with multifocal visual evoked potential. Mult Scler2009; 15: 1431-1441.
37.
The clinical profile of optic neuritis.Experience of the Optic Neuritis Treatment Trial. Optic Neuritis Study Group . Arch Ophthalmol1991; 109: 1673-1678.
38.
Hickman SJ, Dalton CM, Miller DH, Plant GTManagement of acute optic neuritis. Lancet2002; 360: 1953-1962.
39.
Costello F., Hodge W., Pan YI, Eggenberger E., Coupland S., Kardon RHTracking retinal nerve fiber layer loss after optic neuritis: a prospective study using optical coherence tomography. Mult Scler2008; 14: 893-905.
40.
Arditi A.Improving the design of the letter contrast sensitivity test. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2005; 46: 2225-2229.
41.
Sutter EEImaging visual function with the multifocal m-sequence technique. Vision Res2001; 41: 1241-1255.
42.
Hood DC, Greenstein VCMultifocal VEP and ganglion cell damage: applications and limitations for the study of glaucoma. Prog Retin Eye Res2003; 22: 201-251.
43.
Hood DC, Zhang X., Hong JE, Chen CSQuantifying the benefits of additional channels of multifocal VEP recording . Doc Ophthalmol2002; 104: 303-320.
44.
Hood DC, Ohri N., Yang EB, et al. Determining abnormal latencies of multifocal visual evoked potentials: a monocular analysis. Doc Ophthalmol2004; 109: 189-199.
Garway-Heath DF, Poinoosawmy D., Fitzke FW, Hitchings RAMapping the visual field to the optic disc in normal tension glaucoma eyes. Ophthalmology2000; 107: 1809-1815.
47.
Hood DC, Greenstein VC, Odel JG, et al. Visual field defects and multifocal visual evoked potentials: evidence of a linear relationship. Arch Ophthalmol2002; 120: 1672-1681.
48.
Chauhan BC, Drance SM, Douglas GR, Johnson CAVisual field damage in normal-tension and high-tension glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol1989; 108: 636-642.
49.
Johnson CA, Sample PA, Cioffi GA, Liebmann JR, Weinreb RNStructure and function evaluation (SAFE): I. criteria for glaucomatous visual field loss using standard automated perimetry (SAP) and short wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP). Am J Ophthalmol2002; 134: 177-185.
50.
Gwet K.Inter-rater reliability: dependency on trait prevalence and marginal homogeneity . Statistical Methods For Inter-Rater Reliability Assessment No.2www.stataxis.com ; May 2002.
51.
Garway-Heath DF, Caprioli J., Fitzke FW, Hitchings RAScaling the hill of vision: the physiological relationship between light sensitivity and ganglion cell numbers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2000; 41: 1774-1782.
52.
Klistorner A., Arvind H., Nguyen T., et al. Multifocal VEP and OCT in optic neuritis: a topographical study of the structure-function relationship. Doc Ophthalmol2009; 118: 129-137.
53.
Naismith RT , Tutlam NT, Xu J., et al. Optical coherence tomography is less sensitive than visual evoked potentials in optic neuritis. Neurology2009; 73: 46-52.
Harwerth RS , Carter-Dawson L., Smith 3rd EL, Barnes G., Holt WF, Crawford MLNeural losses correlated with visual losses in clinical perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2004; 45: 3152-3160.
56.
Hood DC, Kardon RHA framework for comparing structural and functional measures of glaucomatous damage. Prog Retin Eye Res2007; 26: 688-710.
57.
Wall M., Johnson CA, Kutzko KE, Nguyen R., Brito C., Keltner JLLong- and short-term variability of automated perimetry results in patients with optic neuritis and healthy subjects. Arch Ophthalmol1998; 116: 53-61.
58.
Hood DC, Fortune B., Arthur SN, et al. Blood vessel contributions to retinal nerve fiber layer thickness profiles measured with optical coherence tomography. J Glaucoma2008; 17: 519-528.
59.
Hood DC, Salant JA, Arthur SN, Ritch R., Liebmann JMThe location of the inferior and superior temporal blood vessels and interindividual variability of the retinal nerve fiber layer thickness. J Glaucoma2009; Epub ahead of print.
60.
Harwerth RS , Wheat JLModeling the effects of aging on retinal ganglion cell density and nerve fiber layer thickness. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol2008; 246: 305-314.
61.
Harwerth RS , Wheat JL, Rangaswamy NVAge-related losses of retinal ganglion cells and axons. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2008; 49: 4437-4443.
62.
Fortune B., Wang L., Cull G., Cioffi GAIntravitreal colchicine causes decreased RNFL birefringence without altering RNFL thickness. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2008; 49: 255-261.
63.
Huang XR, Knighton RWMicrotubules contribute to the birefringence of the retinal nerve fiber layer . Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2005; 46: 4588-4593.
64.
Leung CK, Cheung CY, Weinreb RN, et al. Retinal nerve fiber layer imaging with spectral-domain optical coherence tomography: a variability and diagnostic performance study. Ophthalmology2009; 116: 1257-1263, 1263. e1-2.
65.
Chang RT, Knight OR, Feuer WJ, Budenz DLSensitivity and specificity of time-domain versus spectral-domain optical coherence tomography in diagnosing early to moderate glaucoma. Ophthalmology2009; 116: 2294-2299.
66.
Budenz DL, Michael A., Chang RT, McSoley J., Katz J.Sensitivity and specificity of the StratusOCT for perimetric glaucoma. Ophthalmology2005; 112: 3-9.
67.
Gardiner SK , Johnson CA, Cioffi GAEvaluation of the structure-function relationship in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2005 ; 46: 3712-3717.
68.
Strouthidis NG, Vinciotti V., Tucker AJ, Gardiner SK, Crabb DP, Garway-Heath DFStructure and function in glaucoma: the relationship between a functional visual field map and an anatomic retinal map. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2006; 47: 5356-5362.
69.
Genova HM, Sumowski JF, Chiaravalloti N., Voelbel GT, Deluca J.Cognition in multiple sclerosis: a review of neuropsychological and fMRI research . Front Biosci2009; 14: 1730-1744.
70.
Wallin MT, Wilken JA, Kane R.Cognitive dysfunction in multiple sclerosis: assessment, imaging, and risk factors. J Rehabil Res Dev2006; 43: 63-72.
71.
Jones SJ, Brusa A.Neurophysiological evidence for long-term repair of MS lesions: implications for axon protection. J Neurol Sci2003; 206: 193-198.
72.
Klistorner A. , Graham S., Fraser C., et al. Electrophysiological evidence for heterogeneity of lesions in optic neuritis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2007; 48: 4549-4556.
73.
Prineas JW, Barnard RO, Kwon EE, Sharer LR, Cho ESMultiple sclerosis: remyelination of nascent lesions. Ann Neurol1993; 33: 137-151.
74.
Yang EB, Hood DC, Rodarte C., Zhang X., Odel JG, Behrens MMImprovement in conduction velocity after optic neuritis measured with the multifocal VEP. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2007; 48: 692-698.
75.
Hood DC, Odel JG, Zhang X.Tracking the recovery of local optic nerve function after optic neuritis: a multifocal VEP study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2000; 41: 4032-4038.
76.
Lu AT, Wang M., Varma R., et al. Combining nerve fiber layer parameters to optimize glaucoma diagnosis with optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology2008; 115: 1352-1357, 1357. e1-2.
77.
Trip SA, Schlottmann PG, Jones SJ, et al. Retinal nerve fiber layer axonal loss and visual dysfunction in optic neuritis. Ann Neurol2005; 58: 383-391.
78.
Henderson AP , Trip SA, Schlottmann PG, et al. An investigation of the retinal nerve fibre layer in progressive multiple sclerosis using optical coherence tomography . Brain2008; 131: 277-287.
79.
Maddess T., James AC, Bowman EAContrast response of temporally sparse dichoptic multifocal visual evoked potentials. Vis Neurosci2005; 22: 153-162.
80.
Ruseckaite R., Maddess T., Danta G., Lueck CJ, James ACSparse multifocal stimuli for the detection of multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol2005; 57: 904-913.
81.
Fortune B., Demirel S., Bui BVMultifocal visual evoked potential responses to pattern-reversal, pattern-onset, pattern-offset, and sparse pulse stimuli. Vis Neurosci2009; 26: 227-235.
82.
Klistorner AI, Graham SLEffect of eccentricity on pattern-pulse multifocal VEP. Doc Ophthalmol2005; 110: 209-218.
