4.4 Article

Rates of visual field progression in clinical glaucoma care

Journal

ACTA OPHTHALMOLOGICA
Volume 91, Issue 5, Pages 406-412

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2012.02492.x

Keywords

Glaucoma; progression; rate of progression; visual field

Categories

Funding

  1. Swedish Research Council [K2005-74X-10426-13A]
  2. Jarnhardt Foundation
  3. Allergan Inc., Irvine CA, USA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To investigate rates of visual field progression and factors associated with progression rate in open-angle glaucoma in clinical glaucoma care. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of all patients with manifest primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) and pseudoexfoliation glaucoma (PEXG) followed 5years with 5 SITA Standard fields. Exclusion criteria were minimal. Demographics, intraocular pressure values (IOP), treatment and treatment changes, and visual field (VF) data were recorded. VF progression rates were calculated as slopes of mean deviation (MD) over time. Results: Five hundred and eighty-three patients were eligible. Three hundred and sixty-seven (62%) had POAG and 221 (38%) PEXG. Median MD at study start was -10.0dB. Mean follow-up time was 7.8years (SD +/- 1.2); mean number of VF tests was 8.9 (SD +/- 2.8). Progression rates varied very much among patients with a mean of -0.80dB/year (SD +/- 0.82; median rate, -0.62), and 5.6% of patients progressed at rates worse than -2.5dB per year A negative slope of MD values was observed in 89% of patients. Mean IOP of all visits decreased over the study period from 20.15 to 18.10mmHg. Higher age and mean IOP, and more intensive treatment were associated with more rapid progression, while PEXG and IOP variation were not, if treatment intensity was taken into account. Conclusion: Rates of visual field progression in manifest glaucoma with field loss in ordinary clinical care were highly variable. Progression rates rapid enough to influence quality of life were common.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available