Ophthalmology · 1999
Efficacy of apraclonidine 1% versus pilocarpine 4% for prophylaxis of intraocular pressure spike after argon laser trabeculoplasty.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка 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.
Ren J, Shin D H, Chung H S, Birt C M, Glover B K, Juzych M S, Hughes B A, Kim C
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The authors compared the efficacy of apraclonidine 1% versus pilocarpine 4% prophylaxis of post-argon laser trabeculoplasty (ALT) intraocular pressure (IOP) spike.
DESIGN: Prospective randomized clinical trial.
PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred twenty-eight eyes of 228 patients with primary open-angle glaucoma undergoing ALT were studied.
INTERVENTION: Patients were given 1 drop of either apraclonidine 1% (n = 114) or pilocarpine 4% (n = 114) 15 minutes before ALT.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Peri-ALT IOPs and incidences of post-ALT IOP spikes at 5 minutes, 1 hour, and 24 hours were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: The two groups were similar in age, race, and medical dependency. Post-ALT mean IOPs at 5 minutes, 1 hour, and 24 hours were significantly lower than pre-ALT mean IOPs in both apraclonidine (P < 0.001) and pilocarpine (P < 0.001) groups. Incidences of IOP spikes greater than 1, 3, and 5 mmHg at 1 hour post-ALT were 21.1%, 14.9%, and 8.8% for the apraclonidine group and 12.3%, 5.3%, and 4.4% for the pilocarpine group (P = 0.076, 0.015, and 0.18 chi-square test). In the apraclonidine prophylaxis group, patients on long-term apraclonidine showed significantly higher incidence of post-ALT IOP spike than the patients without such long-term apraclonidine use (35.7%, 15 of 42 eyes, vs. 12.5%, 9 of 72 eyes; P = 0.003). In addition, peri-ALT pilocarpine prophylaxis tended to be less effective in patients undergoing long-term pilocarpine therapy but without statistical significance (17.4%, 8 of 46 eyes, vs. 9.4%, 6 of 64 eyes; P = 0.17).
CONCLUSION: Peri-ALT pilocarpine 4% was at least as effective as, if not more effective than, apraclonidine 1% in post-ALT IOP spike prophylaxis. Peri-ALT apraclonidine prophylaxis was not effective in patients on long-term apraclonidine, and peri-ALT pilocarpine prophylaxis tended to be less effective in patients undergoing long-term pilocarpine therapy. Pilocarpine 4% can be considered as a first-choice drug for post-ALT IOP spike prophylaxis, especially in patients under treatment with apraclonidine.
DESIGN: Prospective randomized clinical trial.
PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred twenty-eight eyes of 228 patients with primary open-angle glaucoma undergoing ALT were studied.
INTERVENTION: Patients were given 1 drop of either apraclonidine 1% (n = 114) or pilocarpine 4% (n = 114) 15 minutes before ALT.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Peri-ALT IOPs and incidences of post-ALT IOP spikes at 5 minutes, 1 hour, and 24 hours were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: The two groups were similar in age, race, and medical dependency. Post-ALT mean IOPs at 5 minutes, 1 hour, and 24 hours were significantly lower than pre-ALT mean IOPs in both apraclonidine (P < 0.001) and pilocarpine (P < 0.001) groups. Incidences of IOP spikes greater than 1, 3, and 5 mmHg at 1 hour post-ALT were 21.1%, 14.9%, and 8.8% for the apraclonidine group and 12.3%, 5.3%, and 4.4% for the pilocarpine group (P = 0.076, 0.015, and 0.18 chi-square test). In the apraclonidine prophylaxis group, patients on long-term apraclonidine showed significantly higher incidence of post-ALT IOP spike than the patients without such long-term apraclonidine use (35.7%, 15 of 42 eyes, vs. 12.5%, 9 of 72 eyes; P = 0.003). In addition, peri-ALT pilocarpine prophylaxis tended to be less effective in patients undergoing long-term pilocarpine therapy but without statistical significance (17.4%, 8 of 46 eyes, vs. 9.4%, 6 of 64 eyes; P = 0.17).
CONCLUSION: Peri-ALT pilocarpine 4% was at least as effective as, if not more effective than, apraclonidine 1% in post-ALT IOP spike prophylaxis. Peri-ALT apraclonidine prophylaxis was not effective in patients on long-term apraclonidine, and peri-ALT pilocarpine prophylaxis tended to be less effective in patients undergoing long-term pilocarpine therapy. Pilocarpine 4% can be considered as a first-choice drug for post-ALT IOP spike prophylaxis, especially in patients under treatment with apraclonidine.