4.4 Article

Results of long-term monitoring of normal-tension glaucoma patients receiving medical therapy: results of an 18-year follow-up

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00417-014-2767-3

Keywords

Long-term; Normal tension glaucoma; Medical therapy; Visual field progression; Risk factor

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To conduct a a parts per thousand yen15-year follow-up assessment of the visual field (VF) in normal-tension glaucoma (NTG) patients receiving medical therapy and to identify risk factors for VF progression. A retrospective clinical study. Medical records of 78 eyes of 78 NTG patients monitored for a parts per thousand yen15 years were reviewed. VF progression was defined by a mean deviation (MD) deteriorated twice by 3.00 dB from baseline (MD criterion) and an annual decrease in the MD slope exceeding -0.5 dB/year (MD slope criterion). Logistic regression analysis was employed to identify risk factors for VF progression. The mean follow-up period was 18.3 years. The average intraocular pressure (IOP) before treatment was 15.1 +/- 1.9 mmHg and the average treated IOP was 13.5 +/- 1.5 mmHg with 2.0 medications. Forty-two eyes (53.8%) showed VF progression using the MD criterion and 15 eyes (19.2%) showed a negative MD slope less than -0.5 dB/year. Disc hemorrhage (DH) was observed in 30 eyes (38.5%). The mean VF progression rate was -0.38 +/- 0.30 dB/year in the DH group and -0.24 +/- 0.28 dB/year in the non-DH group (P = 0.012). Multiple logistic regression analysis identified DH [relative risk (RR) 4.28; P = 0.028] as a risk factor for VF progression using the MD criterion. DH (RR 8.77; P = 0.007) and IOP fluctuation during follow-up (RR 5.03; P = 0.048) were detected as risk factors using the MD slope criterion. DH and IOP fluctuation were associated with VF progression in NTG during long-term therapy.

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