Journal of glaucoma · 2017
Predictive Value of the Water Drinking Test and the Risk of Glaucomatous Visual Field Progression.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
De Moraes Carlos G, Susanna Remo, Sakata Lisandro M, Hatanaka Marcelo
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The purpose of this is to test the hypothesis the intraocular pressure (IOP) peaks during a stress test [the water drinking test (WDT)] can estimate the risk of future visual field progression in treated primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) patients.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Design: Prospective, longitudinal study.
SETTING: Clinical practice.
STUDY POPULATION: Treated POAG patients whose IOP was ≤18 mm Hg and who had no IOP-lowering interventions between the date of the WDT and the last eligible visual field.
INTERVENTION: At baseline examination, patients underwent the WDT and were then followed at regular intervals with office-based IOP measurements and visual field testing.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Cox-proportional hazards survival analysis testing the predictive value of IOP peaks during the WDT versus IOP measurements during office hours on visual field progression.
RESULTS: A total of 144 eyes of 96 patients with baseline visual field damage ranging from mild to severe followed for a mean of 28 months were analyzed. In the multivariable analysis adjusting for potential confounders, higher IOP peaks during the WDT were predictive of future visual field progression (hazard ratio=1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.02 to 1.21; P=0.013). The average and peak IOP during office hours over the same follow-up period were not significantly associated with progression (P=0.651 and 0.569, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: IOP peaks detected with the WDT were predictive of future visual field progression in a treated POAG population. This stress test could be a useful tool for risk assessment in daily practice.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Design: Prospective, longitudinal study.
SETTING: Clinical practice.
STUDY POPULATION: Treated POAG patients whose IOP was ≤18 mm Hg and who had no IOP-lowering interventions between the date of the WDT and the last eligible visual field.
INTERVENTION: At baseline examination, patients underwent the WDT and were then followed at regular intervals with office-based IOP measurements and visual field testing.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Cox-proportional hazards survival analysis testing the predictive value of IOP peaks during the WDT versus IOP measurements during office hours on visual field progression.
RESULTS: A total of 144 eyes of 96 patients with baseline visual field damage ranging from mild to severe followed for a mean of 28 months were analyzed. In the multivariable analysis adjusting for potential confounders, higher IOP peaks during the WDT were predictive of future visual field progression (hazard ratio=1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.02 to 1.21; P=0.013). The average and peak IOP during office hours over the same follow-up period were not significantly associated with progression (P=0.651 and 0.569, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: IOP peaks detected with the WDT were predictive of future visual field progression in a treated POAG population. This stress test could be a useful tool for risk assessment in daily practice.