4.6 Article

Comparison of Risk Factors for Bilateral and Unilateral Eye Involvement in Normal-Tension Glaucoma

期刊

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
卷 50, 期 3, 页码 1215-1220

出版社

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.08-1886

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE. To compare the risk factors for bilateral and unilateral disease in normal-tension glaucoma (NTG). METHODS. The study analyzed data from consecutive NTG patients with either bilateral (n = 194) or unilateral ( n = 193) disease. Multivariate regression models were used to evaluate the following potential risk factors for bilateral eye involvement: age, sex, central corneal thickness, mean deviation in standard automated perimetry, mean and fluctuation of diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP) without glaucoma medication, spherical equivalent, family history of glaucoma, and underlying systemic disease such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, ischemic heart disease, previous cerebrovascular accident, migraine, and cold extremities. RESULTS. Multivariate analysis showed that worse mean deviation in the first affected eye (odds ratio [OR], 1.19/1 dB decrease; P < 0.001), diabetes mellitus (OR, 2.31; P = 0.004), previous cerebrovascular accident (OR, 4.27; P = 0.039), and mean IOP greater than 14 mm Hg in the less affected eye (OR, 1.66; P = 0.030) were significantly associated with bilateral eye involvement in NTG. CONCLUSIONS. Besides being an indicator of disease severity (worse mean deviation), diabetes mellitus, previous cerebrovascular accident, and IOP were associated with bilateral eye involvement. These data suggest that systemic vascular factors and IOP play significant roles in the pathogenesis of NTG. It appears that although systemic vascular factors increase the susceptibility of the optic nerve, a certain level of pressure-induced stress is also required to cause glaucomatous optic neuropathy. (Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009; 50: 1215-1220) DOI:10.1167/iovs.08-1886

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据