Lack of association between provocative test-based intraocular pressure parameters and functional loss in treated glaucoma patients

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Scoralick,Ana Luiza Bassoli
Data de Publicação: 2019
Outros Autores: Gracitelli,Carolina Pelegrini Barbosa, Dias,Diego Torres, Almeida,Izabela, Ushida,Michele, Dorairaj,Syril, Kanadani,Fábio Nishimura, Paranhos Jr.,Augusto, Prata,Tiago Santos
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004-27492019000300003
Resumo: ABSTRACT Purpose: To correlate provocative test-based intraocular pressure (IOP) variation parameters (fluctuation and peak) with functional status, and to compare these IOP parameters between treated eyes with asymmetric primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). Methods: A prospective observational study including consecutively treated patients with primary open-angle glaucoma was performed. Subjects with ocular diseases other than glaucoma or previous incisional glaucoma surgery were excluded. The primary inclusion criteria were 33 visual field tests and 32 years of follow-up, without any changes on current medical regimen. Long-term intraocular pressure parameters were acquired via isolated intraocular pressure measurements from the patients' last 5 office visits. To evaluate provocative test-based intraocular pressure parameters, all patients were submitted to a water drinking test. Initially, the partial correlation coefficients between each intraocular pressure variation parameter and visual field mean deviation were calculated, adjusting for the baseline intraocular pressure and number of antiglaucoma medications. In addition, each intraocular pressure parameter was compared between eyes with better visual field mean deviation and fellow eyes with worse visual field mean deviation in patients with asymmetric visual field loss (defined as an inter-eye visual field mean deviation difference of at least 3 dB). Results: A total of 87 eyes (87 patients; mean age, 61.9 ± 12.5 years; 59.8% women) with primary open-angle glaucoma were included. The patients underwent a median of 5 visual field tests, with a mean follow-up of 4.3 ± 1.4 years. Neither long-term nor water-drinking test intraocular pressure variation parameters were significantly associated with visual field mean deviation values (p30.117). In the subgroup with asymmetric visual field loss (64 eyes of 32 patients; mean age, 65.0 ± 11.4 years), neither long-term water-drinking test intraocular pressure variation parameters differed significantly between eyes with better and worse visual field mean deviation (p30.400). Conclusion: Our results indicate that neither long-term intraocular pressure variation parameters nor stress test-derived intraocular pressure metrics, as assessed by the water-drinking test, appear to correlate with the visual field status or differ significantly between eyes with asymmetric visual field damage, suggesting that other factors may explain such functional asymmetry, and that the water-drinking test does not add significant information to these cases.
id CBO-2_953f3aa34c18a3227a930e18f42c60d7
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0004-27492019000300003
network_acronym_str CBO-2
network_name_str Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Lack of association between provocative test-based intraocular pressure parameters and functional loss in treated glaucoma patientsGlaucoma, open-angle/physiopathologyIntraocular pressure/physiologyDiagnostic techniques, ophthalmologicalDrin kingWaterCircadian rhythmABSTRACT Purpose: To correlate provocative test-based intraocular pressure (IOP) variation parameters (fluctuation and peak) with functional status, and to compare these IOP parameters between treated eyes with asymmetric primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). Methods: A prospective observational study including consecutively treated patients with primary open-angle glaucoma was performed. Subjects with ocular diseases other than glaucoma or previous incisional glaucoma surgery were excluded. The primary inclusion criteria were 33 visual field tests and 32 years of follow-up, without any changes on current medical regimen. Long-term intraocular pressure parameters were acquired via isolated intraocular pressure measurements from the patients' last 5 office visits. To evaluate provocative test-based intraocular pressure parameters, all patients were submitted to a water drinking test. Initially, the partial correlation coefficients between each intraocular pressure variation parameter and visual field mean deviation were calculated, adjusting for the baseline intraocular pressure and number of antiglaucoma medications. In addition, each intraocular pressure parameter was compared between eyes with better visual field mean deviation and fellow eyes with worse visual field mean deviation in patients with asymmetric visual field loss (defined as an inter-eye visual field mean deviation difference of at least 3 dB). Results: A total of 87 eyes (87 patients; mean age, 61.9 ± 12.5 years; 59.8% women) with primary open-angle glaucoma were included. The patients underwent a median of 5 visual field tests, with a mean follow-up of 4.3 ± 1.4 years. Neither long-term nor water-drinking test intraocular pressure variation parameters were significantly associated with visual field mean deviation values (p30.117). In the subgroup with asymmetric visual field loss (64 eyes of 32 patients; mean age, 65.0 ± 11.4 years), neither long-term water-drinking test intraocular pressure variation parameters differed significantly between eyes with better and worse visual field mean deviation (p30.400). Conclusion: Our results indicate that neither long-term intraocular pressure variation parameters nor stress test-derived intraocular pressure metrics, as assessed by the water-drinking test, appear to correlate with the visual field status or differ significantly between eyes with asymmetric visual field damage, suggesting that other factors may explain such functional asymmetry, and that the water-drinking test does not add significant information to these cases.Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia2019-06-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004-27492019000300003Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia v.82 n.3 2019reponame:Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online)instname:Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia (CBO)instacron:CBO10.5935/0004-2749.20190035info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessScoralick,Ana Luiza BassoliGracitelli,Carolina Pelegrini BarbosaDias,Diego TorresAlmeida,IzabelaUshida,MicheleDorairaj,SyrilKanadani,Fábio NishimuraParanhos Jr.,AugustoPrata,Tiago Santoseng2019-05-13T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0004-27492019000300003Revistahttp://aboonline.org.br/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpaboonline@cbo.com.br||abo@cbo.com.br1678-29250004-2749opendoar:2019-05-13T00:00Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online) - Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia (CBO)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Lack of association between provocative test-based intraocular pressure parameters and functional loss in treated glaucoma patients
title Lack of association between provocative test-based intraocular pressure parameters and functional loss in treated glaucoma patients
spellingShingle Lack of association between provocative test-based intraocular pressure parameters and functional loss in treated glaucoma patients
Scoralick,Ana Luiza Bassoli
Glaucoma, open-angle/physiopathology
Intraocular pressure/physiology
Diagnostic techniques, ophthalmological
Drin king
Water
Circadian rhythm
title_short Lack of association between provocative test-based intraocular pressure parameters and functional loss in treated glaucoma patients
title_full Lack of association between provocative test-based intraocular pressure parameters and functional loss in treated glaucoma patients
title_fullStr Lack of association between provocative test-based intraocular pressure parameters and functional loss in treated glaucoma patients
title_full_unstemmed Lack of association between provocative test-based intraocular pressure parameters and functional loss in treated glaucoma patients
title_sort Lack of association between provocative test-based intraocular pressure parameters and functional loss in treated glaucoma patients
author Scoralick,Ana Luiza Bassoli
author_facet Scoralick,Ana Luiza Bassoli
Gracitelli,Carolina Pelegrini Barbosa
Dias,Diego Torres
Almeida,Izabela
Ushida,Michele
Dorairaj,Syril
Kanadani,Fábio Nishimura
Paranhos Jr.,Augusto
Prata,Tiago Santos
author_role author
author2 Gracitelli,Carolina Pelegrini Barbosa
Dias,Diego Torres
Almeida,Izabela
Ushida,Michele
Dorairaj,Syril
Kanadani,Fábio Nishimura
Paranhos Jr.,Augusto
Prata,Tiago Santos
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Scoralick,Ana Luiza Bassoli
Gracitelli,Carolina Pelegrini Barbosa
Dias,Diego Torres
Almeida,Izabela
Ushida,Michele
Dorairaj,Syril
Kanadani,Fábio Nishimura
Paranhos Jr.,Augusto
Prata,Tiago Santos
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Glaucoma, open-angle/physiopathology
Intraocular pressure/physiology
Diagnostic techniques, ophthalmological
Drin king
Water
Circadian rhythm
topic Glaucoma, open-angle/physiopathology
Intraocular pressure/physiology
Diagnostic techniques, ophthalmological
Drin king
Water
Circadian rhythm
description ABSTRACT Purpose: To correlate provocative test-based intraocular pressure (IOP) variation parameters (fluctuation and peak) with functional status, and to compare these IOP parameters between treated eyes with asymmetric primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). Methods: A prospective observational study including consecutively treated patients with primary open-angle glaucoma was performed. Subjects with ocular diseases other than glaucoma or previous incisional glaucoma surgery were excluded. The primary inclusion criteria were 33 visual field tests and 32 years of follow-up, without any changes on current medical regimen. Long-term intraocular pressure parameters were acquired via isolated intraocular pressure measurements from the patients' last 5 office visits. To evaluate provocative test-based intraocular pressure parameters, all patients were submitted to a water drinking test. Initially, the partial correlation coefficients between each intraocular pressure variation parameter and visual field mean deviation were calculated, adjusting for the baseline intraocular pressure and number of antiglaucoma medications. In addition, each intraocular pressure parameter was compared between eyes with better visual field mean deviation and fellow eyes with worse visual field mean deviation in patients with asymmetric visual field loss (defined as an inter-eye visual field mean deviation difference of at least 3 dB). Results: A total of 87 eyes (87 patients; mean age, 61.9 ± 12.5 years; 59.8% women) with primary open-angle glaucoma were included. The patients underwent a median of 5 visual field tests, with a mean follow-up of 4.3 ± 1.4 years. Neither long-term nor water-drinking test intraocular pressure variation parameters were significantly associated with visual field mean deviation values (p30.117). In the subgroup with asymmetric visual field loss (64 eyes of 32 patients; mean age, 65.0 ± 11.4 years), neither long-term water-drinking test intraocular pressure variation parameters differed significantly between eyes with better and worse visual field mean deviation (p30.400). Conclusion: Our results indicate that neither long-term intraocular pressure variation parameters nor stress test-derived intraocular pressure metrics, as assessed by the water-drinking test, appear to correlate with the visual field status or differ significantly between eyes with asymmetric visual field damage, suggesting that other factors may explain such functional asymmetry, and that the water-drinking test does not add significant information to these cases.
publishDate 2019
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2019-06-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004-27492019000300003
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004-27492019000300003
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.5935/0004-2749.20190035
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia v.82 n.3 2019
reponame:Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online)
instname:Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia (CBO)
instacron:CBO
instname_str Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia (CBO)
instacron_str CBO
institution CBO
reponame_str Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online)
collection Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online) - Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia (CBO)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv aboonline@cbo.com.br||abo@cbo.com.br
_version_ 1754209030333530112