4.3 Article

Risk Factors Associated with Progression in Exfoliative Glaucoma Patients

Journal

OPHTHALMIC RESEARCH
Volume 47, Issue 4, Pages 208-213

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000332081

Keywords

Disc hemorrhage; Exfoliative glaucoma; Intraocular pressure; Progression; Risk factors

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To evaluate exfoliative glaucoma (XFG) patients over 5 years, determining risk factors associated with progression or non-progression of glaucoma. Methods: A retrospective, observational study. Patients were chosen from consecutive charts and data collected from each available visit included in the follow-up period. Data were abstracted for non-progressed XFG patients for 5 years and for progressed patients until glaucoma worsened. Progression was determined from patient records and by disc photographs. Results:There were 71(53%) progressed and 63 (47%) non-progressed XFG patients. Baseline parameters demonstrated worse visual field damage (p = 0.014) and more prescribed medicines (p = 0.03) in progressed patients. The mean intra-ocular pressure (IOP) for progressed patients was 18.7 +/- 4.3 and 17.3 +/- 3.4 mm Hg for non-progressed patients (p = 0.047). The mean IOP that best separated the groups was 17 mm Hg with 60% staying non-progressed at or below this level and 30% above this level. At the last visit, progressed patients had more medicines prescribed (1.7) than non-progressed patients (1.3, p = 0.005). A multivariate regression analysis showed higher mean, peak and variance of IOP, number of glaucoma medications at the final visit and presence of a disc hemorrhage (n = 5) as independent risk factors for progression (p <= 0.05). Conclusion: IOP reduction in XFG may be essential in reducing disease progression. The presence of disc hemorrhage in XFG may suggest an increased probability of progression despite treatment to within the normal IOP range. Copyright (C) 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available