Comparison of conventional ERG parameters and high-intensity A-wave analysis in a clinical setting

Abstract

Computational analysis of high-intensity a-waves yields direct information about the rod and cone receptor potential. However, it is not clear whether such information adds materially to the diagnostic value of the standard ERG in a routine clinical setting. We recorded both conventional ISCEV standard and computational high intensity ERG parameters from 38 patients referred to a clinical laboratory for ERG testing, and also from eight normal volunteers. The patients were grouped as: (1) macular dysfunction; (2) diffuse cone dysfunction; (3) diffuse rod-cone dysfunction. The results showed moderate variation in both conventional and computational parameters, but in general a similar pattern of normality or abnormality for both among the disease groups. There were only a few outlying subjects for which one or the other approach seemed more sensitive. We conclude that a-wave analysis is an important tool for clinical research and the study of special patients, but adding it to the standard ERG protocol does not, at our present state of knowledge, add markedly to clinical evaluations in a routine clinical setting.