Lack of association between provocative test-based intraocular pressure parameters and functional loss in treated glaucoma patients
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2019 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , , , , |
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 |