4.6 Article

Is Routine Pupil Dilation Safe among Asian Patients with Diabetes?

Journal

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
Volume 50, Issue 9, Pages 4110-4113

Publisher

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.08-2745

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Singapore Eye Research Institute

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE. To investigate the risk of acute angle closure (AAC), changes in intraocular pressure (IOP), and factors associated with these outcomes after routine pupil dilation in a cohort of Asian subjects with diabetes mellitus. METHODS. The study was a prospective observational case series of 1910 consecutive Asian subjects newly referred for assessment of diabetic retinopathy at a tertiary clinic. All subjects underwent routine pupil dilation unless there was a prior history of angle-closure glaucoma. Noncontact air-puff tonometry was used to assess IOP, which was measured by the same observer before and 1 hour after pupil dilation. Subjects were assessed for signs and symptoms of AAC before leaving the clinic, and their charts were also subsequently reviewed for revisits with AAC. RESULTS. Of the 1910 subjects who participated, none developed AAC. Sixty-nine subjects (3.6%, 95% CI: 2.8%-4.5%) showed an increase in IOP of >= 5 mm Hg in the either eye, 37 subjects (1.9%, 95% CI: 1.4%-2.6%) had a postdilation IOP > 25 mm Hg in either eye, and only 10 subjects (0.52%, 95% CI: 0.25%-0.96%) had an increase in IOP >= 5 mm Hg and had a postdilation IOP > 25 mm Hg in either eye. The level of predilation IOP and a known history of glaucoma were significant risk factors for a postdilation IOP >= 25 mm Hg. CONCLUSIONS. In this cohort of Asian persons with diabetes, the risk of AAC was insignificant after routine dilation of pupils for fundus examination. These data substantiate the safety of routine dilation of pupils in Asian patients with diabetes. (Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009; 50: 4110-4113) DOI: 10.1167/iovs.08-2745

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