Ophthalmic research · 2012
Distribution of mean, systolic and diastolic ocular perfusion pressure in telemedical homemonitoring of glaucoma patients.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Jürgens Clemens, Grossjohann Rico, Tost Frank
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To analyze the relation and distribution of mean, systolic and diastolic ocular perfusion pressure (OPP) in telemedical homemonitoring of patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG).
METHODS: 70 patients with POAG measured intraocular pressure (IOP) and blood pressure at home for a period of 6 months with the Goldmann applanation self-tonometer Ocuton S and the blood pressure device boso medicus PC. Twenty-four-hour profiles were taken every 4 weeks in addition to single measurements in the morning and evening once a week. All measured values were transmitted to an electronic patient record, which calculated OPP by taking systolic, diastolic and mean arterial blood pressure and subtracting IOP.
RESULTS: We analyzed 3,282 values of mean, systolic and diastolic OPP. The quantity of values below the risk levels of the Barbados Eye Studies was calculated. We found values lower than the risk levels for LE: 49 (1.5%)/RE: 60 (1.8%) systolic OPP, LE: 1,623 (49.5%)/RE: 1,761 (53.7%) diastolic OPP and LE: 687 (20.9%)/RE: 794 (24.2%) mean OPP. The individual average OPP levels of all 70 patients below the risk levels showed the following distribution: LE: 4 (5.7%)/RE: 6 (8.6%) systolic OPP, LE: 19 (27.1%)/RE: 20 (28.6%) diastolic OPP and LE: 10 (14.3%)/RE: 10 (14.3%) mean OPP.
CONCLUSION: The individual distribution of different OPP values in POAG patients is not easy to interpret for clinical ophthalmologists. Precise practicable guidelines for clinical use still have to be determined.
METHODS: 70 patients with POAG measured intraocular pressure (IOP) and blood pressure at home for a period of 6 months with the Goldmann applanation self-tonometer Ocuton S and the blood pressure device boso medicus PC. Twenty-four-hour profiles were taken every 4 weeks in addition to single measurements in the morning and evening once a week. All measured values were transmitted to an electronic patient record, which calculated OPP by taking systolic, diastolic and mean arterial blood pressure and subtracting IOP.
RESULTS: We analyzed 3,282 values of mean, systolic and diastolic OPP. The quantity of values below the risk levels of the Barbados Eye Studies was calculated. We found values lower than the risk levels for LE: 49 (1.5%)/RE: 60 (1.8%) systolic OPP, LE: 1,623 (49.5%)/RE: 1,761 (53.7%) diastolic OPP and LE: 687 (20.9%)/RE: 794 (24.2%) mean OPP. The individual average OPP levels of all 70 patients below the risk levels showed the following distribution: LE: 4 (5.7%)/RE: 6 (8.6%) systolic OPP, LE: 19 (27.1%)/RE: 20 (28.6%) diastolic OPP and LE: 10 (14.3%)/RE: 10 (14.3%) mean OPP.
CONCLUSION: The individual distribution of different OPP values in POAG patients is not easy to interpret for clinical ophthalmologists. Precise practicable guidelines for clinical use still have to be determined.