Evidence Hub

Evaluation of blood flow in arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy using laser speckle flowgraphy: A case series

Chiaki Yamaguchi, Naoki Kiyota, Noriko Himori, Takahiro Oshima, Takayuki Takeshita, Kazuko Omodaka, Satoru Tsuda, Toru Nakazawa

American Journal of Ophthalmology Case Reports, 2025

4 citations

Abstract

Background Arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (AAION), primarily caused by giant cell arteritis, is a leading cause of blindness. This disease results in significant ocular blood flow (BF) impairment, though data on ocular hemodynamics are limited. Methods This observational case series enrolled four patients treated for AAION (age: 81.8 ± 7.8 years; male to female ratio: 3:1) who underwent laser speckle flowgraphy (LSFG) scanning at the initial visit and after steroid treatment in both eyes. Mean blur rate (MBR), an LSFG parameter that represents BF velocity, was obtained in the optic nerve head vessel area (ONH-MV), ONH tissue area (ONH-MT), and peripapillary choroid, in addition to common ophthalmologic parameters. Results At the initial visit, all affected eyes had no light perception in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) testing, and three cases had a severe increase in circumpapillary retinal nerve fiber layer thickness (cpRNFLT; 191.00 ± 42.03 μm). Pre-treatment, all affected eyes showed decreases in ONH-MV, ONH-MT, and choroidal MBR; this improved after steroid treatment by 80.3 ± 107.6 %, 39.1 ± 79.7 %, and 289.4 ± 303.4 %, respectively. Pre-treatment, all fellow eyes showed no impairment in BCVA or changes in the cpRNFLT. Post-treatment, two fellow eyes showed an increase in ONH-MV and ONH-MT parameters (72.8 ± 32.6 % and 82.2 ± 22.3 %, respectively), while all fellow eyes showed an increase in choroidal MBR (152.7 ± 126.1 %). Conclusion LSFG could be…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free