Transactions of the American Ophthalmological Society · 2002
Clinical decision making based on data from GDx: one-year observations.
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.
Bobrow James C
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To determine whether information derived from the GDx scanning laser polarimeter aids in the clinical decision-making process for patients with various types of glaucoma.
METHODS: Over a 4-month period, 342 consecutive patients with primary open-angle glaucoma, ocular hypertension, angle-closure glaucoma, or secondary glaucomas or in whom the diagnosis of glaucoma was uncertain were evaluated with the GDx scanning laser. After 1 year, 153 patients with glaucoma underwent GDx analysis again. Chart review revealed that 42 of the 153 patients had a change in therapy as a result of the GDx evaluation combined with analysis of visual fields, optic disc cupping, and intraocular pressure (IOP). Outcomes were then compared.
RESULTS: The group who had a change in therapy had a higher average GDx number (51.5 +/- 26.1 vs 37.0 +/- 23.5 [P = .001]) at the initial visit and higher IOP (18.2 +/- 4.6 vs 16.0 +/- 3.2 mm Hg [P = .005]). In spite of a change in therapy, at an average of 344 days later, IOP was unchanged (18.3 +/- 5.3 vs 15.7 +/- 3.2 mm Hg [P = .001]) and GDx values in the altered therapy group were higher than at baseline (57.3 +/- 27.9 vs 36.7 +/- 23.4 [P = .001]), although the differences within each group did not achieve statistical significance.
CONCLUSION: GDx analysis may be helpful in determining patients at risk for damage from glaucoma, even in eyes in which cup-disc ratio and field loss have not progressed. Changing medications without significantly reducing IOP may be insufficient to halt increases in GDx numbers and may indicate a need for more aggressive therapy.
METHODS: Over a 4-month period, 342 consecutive patients with primary open-angle glaucoma, ocular hypertension, angle-closure glaucoma, or secondary glaucomas or in whom the diagnosis of glaucoma was uncertain were evaluated with the GDx scanning laser. After 1 year, 153 patients with glaucoma underwent GDx analysis again. Chart review revealed that 42 of the 153 patients had a change in therapy as a result of the GDx evaluation combined with analysis of visual fields, optic disc cupping, and intraocular pressure (IOP). Outcomes were then compared.
RESULTS: The group who had a change in therapy had a higher average GDx number (51.5 +/- 26.1 vs 37.0 +/- 23.5 [P = .001]) at the initial visit and higher IOP (18.2 +/- 4.6 vs 16.0 +/- 3.2 mm Hg [P = .005]). In spite of a change in therapy, at an average of 344 days later, IOP was unchanged (18.3 +/- 5.3 vs 15.7 +/- 3.2 mm Hg [P = .001]) and GDx values in the altered therapy group were higher than at baseline (57.3 +/- 27.9 vs 36.7 +/- 23.4 [P = .001]), although the differences within each group did not achieve statistical significance.
CONCLUSION: GDx analysis may be helpful in determining patients at risk for damage from glaucoma, even in eyes in which cup-disc ratio and field loss have not progressed. Changing medications without significantly reducing IOP may be insufficient to halt increases in GDx numbers and may indicate a need for more aggressive therapy.