Clinical & experimental ophthalmology · 2010
Understanding the mechanism of the water drinking test: the role of fluid challenge volume in patients with medically controlled primary open angle glaucoma.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Kerr Nathan M, Danesh-Meyer Helen V
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To determine whether a 500-mL fluid challenge produces a different intraocular pressure (IOP) response profile compared with a 1000-mL water drinking test (WDT).
METHODS: Prospective, observer-masked, cross-over, observational study. Patients with primary open angle glaucoma were recruited from a private specialist glaucoma practice. One eye of each patient was included. Subjects were randomized to receive either a 500-mL or 1000-mL fluid challenge. Baseline IOP was recorded with a Goldmann applanation tonometer and then every 15 min for 1 h. A second WDT with the alternate volume of water was performed after a minimum washout period of 24 h. Primary statistical analysis was performed using a two-way anova repeated measures of variance with a Bonferroni post-hoc test.
RESULTS: Fifteen patients were included in this study. The mean patient age was 67.0 +/- 10.2 (SD) years, and 60% of patients were female. There was no statistically significant difference in baseline IOP between the 500-mL and 1000-mL WDTs (P = 0.11). Both fluid challenge volumes produced a statistically significant rise in IOP from baseline at 15, 30 and 45 min after water ingestion. However the mean maximum increase in IOP was less in the 500-mL WDT (3.3 +/- 1.8 mmHg [23.9%]) compared with the 1000-mL WDT (4.9 +/- 2.3 mmHg [32.5%]; P = 0.0095).
CONCLUSION: The 500-mL WDT may provide an alternative for patients who are unable to tolerate drinking 1000 mL of water. However, because the maximum IOP obtained is less, a 500-mL WDT cannot be used to directly estimate peak diurnal pressure.
METHODS: Prospective, observer-masked, cross-over, observational study. Patients with primary open angle glaucoma were recruited from a private specialist glaucoma practice. One eye of each patient was included. Subjects were randomized to receive either a 500-mL or 1000-mL fluid challenge. Baseline IOP was recorded with a Goldmann applanation tonometer and then every 15 min for 1 h. A second WDT with the alternate volume of water was performed after a minimum washout period of 24 h. Primary statistical analysis was performed using a two-way anova repeated measures of variance with a Bonferroni post-hoc test.
RESULTS: Fifteen patients were included in this study. The mean patient age was 67.0 +/- 10.2 (SD) years, and 60% of patients were female. There was no statistically significant difference in baseline IOP between the 500-mL and 1000-mL WDTs (P = 0.11). Both fluid challenge volumes produced a statistically significant rise in IOP from baseline at 15, 30 and 45 min after water ingestion. However the mean maximum increase in IOP was less in the 500-mL WDT (3.3 +/- 1.8 mmHg [23.9%]) compared with the 1000-mL WDT (4.9 +/- 2.3 mmHg [32.5%]; P = 0.0095).
CONCLUSION: The 500-mL WDT may provide an alternative for patients who are unable to tolerate drinking 1000 mL of water. However, because the maximum IOP obtained is less, a 500-mL WDT cannot be used to directly estimate peak diurnal pressure.