4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Factors associated with blindness three months following treatment for acute primary angle glaucoma

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 105, Issue 4, Pages 502-506

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-316259

Keywords

glaucoma; angle

Categories

Funding

  1. Capital Health Research and Development of Special [2016-2-1081]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Education level, TST, and presenting IOP were identified as risk factors for blindness after APAC treatment, with a critical time window of 4.6 hours associated with a blindness rate of <= 1%.
Aims To study the risk factors associated with blindness after treatment of acute primary angle closure (APAC), and to identify the critical time window to decrease rate of blindness. Methods In this multicentre retrospective case series, 1030 consecutive subjects (1164 eyes) with APAC in China were recruited. The rates of blindness were analysed up to 3 months after treatment of APAC. A logistic regression was used to identify the risk factors associated with blindness, including age, gender, distance to hospital, rural or urban settings, treatment method, education level, time from symptom to treatment (TST, hours) and presenting intraocular pressure (IOP). The critical time window associated with a blindness rate of <= 1% was calculated based on a cubic function by fitting TST to the rate of blindness at each time point. Results The rate of blindness after APAC was 12.54% after treatment. In multivariate regression, education level, TST and presenting IOP were risk factors for blindness (p=0.022, 0.004 and 0.001, respectively). The critical time window associated with a blindness rate of <= 1% was 4.6 hours. Conclusions and relevance Education level, TST and presenting IOP were risk factors for blindness after APAC. Timely medical treatment is key in reducing blindness after APAC.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available