Cindy S Zhao,Arthur R Brant,Sarthak V Shah,Edward H Wood,Euna Koo,Rachael E Antonini,Keithra Ortiz,Michael W Gaynon,Darius M Moshfeghi
{"title":"长期早产儿视网膜病变结果与强制性筛查间隔和分级连续性在一个大容量的四级中心。","authors":"Cindy S Zhao,Arthur R Brant,Sarthak V Shah,Edward H Wood,Euna Koo,Rachael E Antonini,Keithra Ortiz,Michael W Gaynon,Darius M Moshfeghi","doi":"10.1016/j.ajo.2025.07.017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE OR PURPOSE\r\nTo summarize screening patterns and treatment rates from a quaternary teaching hospital and regional retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) referral center, highlighting mandated screening interval protocols and grader continuity.\r\n\r\nDESIGN\r\nRetrospective cohort study METHODS, INTERVENTION, OR TESTING: A retrospective review and descriptive analysis of all patients who underwent inpatient ROP screening within a quaternary teaching hospital from 2013-2024. The screening model employed here used continuous screening by assigned graders without handoff and mandated screening interval with binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy (BIO). Variables compared included estimated gestational age, birth weight, weight at each screening, inborn vs outborn status, screening date and intervals, treatment, risk category, and location. ANOVA testing was performed for multiple comparisons, and two-sample T-testing was performed for binary comparisons.\r\n\r\nMAIN OUTCOME MEASURE\r\nIncidence of Treatment-Warranted ROP and Retinal Detachment Rate RESULTS: Within the study period, 15,798 examinations occurred for 1,860 patients. 1,651 (88.8%) patients were only examined by one of four screeners. For each of the four screeners, between 98.1% to 99.3% of examination intervals were weekly or more often. Patients came from 34 different hospitals and 334 (18.0%) were outborn. Outborn (vs inborn) patients had significantly (p < 0.005) younger mean (±SD) EGA (27.8±3.0 weeks vs 29.0±3.0 weeks) and lower mean (±SD) birthweight (1066.9± 408 grams vs 1181.4 ± 416 grams). The screener who accounted for the most treatments also saw more high risk (nano- and micro-premature) infants, with a 19.4% treatment rate of these infants. Volume increased over time, but no seasonal trends were identified (p=0.51). A hundred (5.4%) required treatment, more often those who were outborn (4.6% inborn vs 9.0% outborn, p=0.002). None developed a retinal detachment.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSION\r\nTwelve years of data from a BIO ROP screening model which relies on single screeners for continuity of care and mandated weekly screening demonstrated excellent outcomes. No infants succumbed to blindness from ROP within this screening model. Grader continuity may have contributed to lower intervention rates.","PeriodicalId":7568,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Ophthalmology","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Long-Term Retinopathy of Prematurity Outcomes with Mandated Screening Interval and Grader Continuity at a High-Volume Quaternary Center.\",\"authors\":\"Cindy S Zhao,Arthur R Brant,Sarthak V Shah,Edward H Wood,Euna Koo,Rachael E Antonini,Keithra Ortiz,Michael W Gaynon,Darius M Moshfeghi\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ajo.2025.07.017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"OBJECTIVE OR PURPOSE\\r\\nTo summarize screening patterns and treatment rates from a quaternary teaching hospital and regional retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) referral center, highlighting mandated screening interval protocols and grader continuity.\\r\\n\\r\\nDESIGN\\r\\nRetrospective cohort study METHODS, INTERVENTION, OR TESTING: A retrospective review and descriptive analysis of all patients who underwent inpatient ROP screening within a quaternary teaching hospital from 2013-2024. The screening model employed here used continuous screening by assigned graders without handoff and mandated screening interval with binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy (BIO). Variables compared included estimated gestational age, birth weight, weight at each screening, inborn vs outborn status, screening date and intervals, treatment, risk category, and location. ANOVA testing was performed for multiple comparisons, and two-sample T-testing was performed for binary comparisons.\\r\\n\\r\\nMAIN OUTCOME MEASURE\\r\\nIncidence of Treatment-Warranted ROP and Retinal Detachment Rate RESULTS: Within the study period, 15,798 examinations occurred for 1,860 patients. 1,651 (88.8%) patients were only examined by one of four screeners. For each of the four screeners, between 98.1% to 99.3% of examination intervals were weekly or more often. Patients came from 34 different hospitals and 334 (18.0%) were outborn. Outborn (vs inborn) patients had significantly (p < 0.005) younger mean (±SD) EGA (27.8±3.0 weeks vs 29.0±3.0 weeks) and lower mean (±SD) birthweight (1066.9± 408 grams vs 1181.4 ± 416 grams). The screener who accounted for the most treatments also saw more high risk (nano- and micro-premature) infants, with a 19.4% treatment rate of these infants. Volume increased over time, but no seasonal trends were identified (p=0.51). A hundred (5.4%) required treatment, more often those who were outborn (4.6% inborn vs 9.0% outborn, p=0.002). None developed a retinal detachment.\\r\\n\\r\\nCONCLUSION\\r\\nTwelve years of data from a BIO ROP screening model which relies on single screeners for continuity of care and mandated weekly screening demonstrated excellent outcomes. No infants succumbed to blindness from ROP within this screening model. Grader continuity may have contributed to lower intervention rates.\",\"PeriodicalId\":7568,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Ophthalmology\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Ophthalmology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2025.07.017\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2025.07.017","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Long-Term Retinopathy of Prematurity Outcomes with Mandated Screening Interval and Grader Continuity at a High-Volume Quaternary Center.
OBJECTIVE OR PURPOSE
To summarize screening patterns and treatment rates from a quaternary teaching hospital and regional retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) referral center, highlighting mandated screening interval protocols and grader continuity.
DESIGN
Retrospective cohort study METHODS, INTERVENTION, OR TESTING: A retrospective review and descriptive analysis of all patients who underwent inpatient ROP screening within a quaternary teaching hospital from 2013-2024. The screening model employed here used continuous screening by assigned graders without handoff and mandated screening interval with binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy (BIO). Variables compared included estimated gestational age, birth weight, weight at each screening, inborn vs outborn status, screening date and intervals, treatment, risk category, and location. ANOVA testing was performed for multiple comparisons, and two-sample T-testing was performed for binary comparisons.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE
Incidence of Treatment-Warranted ROP and Retinal Detachment Rate RESULTS: Within the study period, 15,798 examinations occurred for 1,860 patients. 1,651 (88.8%) patients were only examined by one of four screeners. For each of the four screeners, between 98.1% to 99.3% of examination intervals were weekly or more often. Patients came from 34 different hospitals and 334 (18.0%) were outborn. Outborn (vs inborn) patients had significantly (p < 0.005) younger mean (±SD) EGA (27.8±3.0 weeks vs 29.0±3.0 weeks) and lower mean (±SD) birthweight (1066.9± 408 grams vs 1181.4 ± 416 grams). The screener who accounted for the most treatments also saw more high risk (nano- and micro-premature) infants, with a 19.4% treatment rate of these infants. Volume increased over time, but no seasonal trends were identified (p=0.51). A hundred (5.4%) required treatment, more often those who were outborn (4.6% inborn vs 9.0% outborn, p=0.002). None developed a retinal detachment.
CONCLUSION
Twelve years of data from a BIO ROP screening model which relies on single screeners for continuity of care and mandated weekly screening demonstrated excellent outcomes. No infants succumbed to blindness from ROP within this screening model. Grader continuity may have contributed to lower intervention rates.
期刊介绍:
The American Journal of Ophthalmology is a peer-reviewed, scientific publication that welcomes the submission of original, previously unpublished manuscripts directed to ophthalmologists and visual science specialists describing clinical investigations, clinical observations, and clinically relevant laboratory investigations. Published monthly since 1884, the full text of the American Journal of Ophthalmology and supplementary material are also presented online at www.AJO.com and on ScienceDirect.
The American Journal of Ophthalmology publishes Full-Length Articles, Perspectives, Editorials, Correspondences, Books Reports and Announcements. Brief Reports and Case Reports are no longer published. We recommend submitting Brief Reports and Case Reports to our companion publication, the American Journal of Ophthalmology Case Reports.
Manuscripts are accepted with the understanding that they have not been and will not be published elsewhere substantially in any format, and that there are no ethical problems with the content or data collection. Authors may be requested to produce the data upon which the manuscript is based and to answer expeditiously any questions about the manuscript or its authors.