4.6 Article

Blood flow in the optic nerve head in patients with primary aldosteronism

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 18, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285039

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to compare the optic nerve head (ONH) blood flow in healthy eyes and eyes with primary aldosteronism (PA) using laser speckle flowgraphy (LSFG). The results showed that PA patients had significantly lower ONH blood flow than normal subjects, indicating a decrease in blood flow in PA eyes.
PurposeOptic nerve head (ONH) blood flow decrease without changes in intraocular pressure in a possible rat model of retinal ganglion cell loss by systemic administration of aldosterone. To compare the blood flow in the ONH, using laser speckle flowgraphy (LSFG), in healthy eyes and in eyes with primary aldosteronism (PA). MethodsThe ONH tissue area mean blur rate (MT) was evaluated in this single center, retrospective, cross-sectional study using LSFG. In order to compare the MT between PA patients and normal subjects, mixed-effects models were used, with adjustments made for the mean arterial pressure, disc area, and beta-peripapillary atrophy (beta-PPA) area. Mixed-effects models were also used to analyze the risk factors affecting the MT. ResultsThis study evaluated a total of 29 eyes of 17 PA patients and 61 eyes of 61 normal subjects. There was a significantly lower MT in PA patients (10.8 +/- 0.4) as compared to the normal subjects (12.3 +/- 0.3) (P = 0.004). The MT was significantly lower in PA patients (10.8 +/- 0.6) even after adjusting for the potential confounding factors when compared to normal subjects (12.3 +/- 0.3) (P = 0.046). Multivariate mixed-effects model analysis demonstrated that the MT was significantly associated with the PA and beta-PPA. ConclusionsThere was a significantly lower ONH blood flow in PA patients as compared to normal subjects.

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