4.6 Article

Rates of Glaucomatous Visual Field Change in a Large Clinical Population

Journal

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
Volume 55, Issue 7, Pages 4135-4143

Publisher

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.14-14643

Keywords

glaucoma; visual field; progression; clinical study

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE. To determine the rate of glaucomatous visual field change in routine clinical care. METHODS. Mean deviation (MD) rate was computed in one randomly selected eye of all glaucoma patients and suspects with >5 examinations in a tertiary eye-care center. Proportions of fast'' (MD rate, <-1 to -2 dB/y) and catastrophic'' (<-2 dB/y) progressors were determined. The MD rates were computed in tertile groups by the number of examinations, baseline age, and MD. The MD rates were compared to the Canadian Glaucoma Study (CGS), a prospective study with IOP interventions mandated by visual field progression, by pairwise matching of patients by baseline MD. RESULTS. There were 2324 patients with median (interquartile range) baseline age and MD of 65 (56, 74) years and -2.44 (-5.44, -0.86) dB, and follow-up of 7.1 (4.8, 10.2) years with 8 (6, 11) examinations. The median MD rate was -0.05 (0.13, -0.30) dB/y, while the mean follow-up IOP was 17.1 (15.0, 19.7) mm Hg. The MD rate was progressively worse, with a doubling of fast and catastrophic progressors, with each tertile of increasing age. Worse MD rate was associated with lower follow-up IOP. Neither MD rate nor the number of fast and catastrophic progressors was significantly different in clinical care patients matched to CGS patients. CONCLUSIONS. Most patients under routine glaucoma care demonstrate slow rates of visual field progression. The MD rate in the current study was similar to an interventional prospective study, but considerably less negative compared to published studies with similar design.

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