Table 1.

Comparison of patient background between high-myopia CNV versus mCNV and versus nAMD.

Characteristics	High-myopia CNV (n = 20)	versus mCNV (n = 39)		versus nAMD (n = 20)
			P value		P value
Age (years)	67.2 ± 11.7	68.9 ± 9.5	0.8059	77.4 ± 6.2	0.0041
Sex (male/female)	7/12	8/30	0.0029	8/12	0.1481
AL (mm)	27.5 ± 1.0	29.0 ± 1.4	< 0.0001	22.3 ± 0.63	< 0.0001
CNV type (eyes)			< 0.0001		0.0316
Classic	9 (45%)	39 (100%)		2 (10%)
Occult	5 (25%)	0 (0%)		6 (30%)
PCV	6 (30%)	0 (0%)		8 (40%)
RAP	0 (0%)	0 (0%)		4 (20%)
Baseline GLD (µm)	2,704.2 ± 1653*	1075.6 ± 871.0*	0.0002	2886.6 ± 2093	0.9217
Baseline BCVA (logMAR)	0.358 ± 0.29	0.423 ± 0.459	0.7478	0.371 ± 0.383	0.9026
Presence of drusen (eyes)
Affected eye	1 (5%)	0 (0%)	0.3390	11 (55%)	0.0006
Fellow eye	4 (20%)	0 (0%)	0.0106	11 (55%)	0.0222
Presence of LCs	6 (30%)	37†(97%)	< 0.0001	0 (0%)	0.0079
MM category (eyes)				NA
0	6 (30%)	0 (0%)
1	14 (70%)	0 (0%)
2	0 (0%)	27 (69%)
3	0 (0%)	12 (31%)
4	0 (0%)	0 (0%)

The values are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation.

Significant values are in bold.

AL axial length, RAP retinal angiomatous proliferation, logMAR, logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution.

*Within the number of cases excluding one eye that did not undergo fluorescein angiography.

^†Within the number of cases excluding one eye that did not undergo ICGA.