PURPOSE: Symptomatic visual field constriction thought to be associated with vigabatrin has been reported. The current study investigated the visual fields and visual electrophysiology of eight patients with known vigabatrin-attributed visual field loss, three of whom were reported previously. Six of the patients were no longer receiving vigabatrin. METHODS: The central and peripheral fields were examined with the Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer. Full visual electrophysiology, including flash electroretinography (ERG), pattern electroretinography, multifocal ERG using the VERIS system, electro-oculography, and flash and pattern visual evoked potentials, was undertaken. RESULTS: Seven patients showed marked visual field constriction with some sparing of the temporal visual field. The eighth exhibited concentric constriction. Most electrophysiological responses were usually just within normal limits; two patients had subnormal Arden electro-oculography indices; and one patient showed an abnormally delayed photopic b wave. However, five patients showed delayed 30-Hz flicker b waves, and seven patients showed delayed oscillatory potentials. Multifocal ERG showed abnormalities that sometimes correlated with the visual field appearance and confirmed that the deficit occurs at the retinal level. CONCLUSION: Marked visual field constriction appears to be associated with vigabatrin therapy. The field defects and some electrophysiological abnormalities persist when vigabatrin therapy is withdrawn.
PURPOSE: Symptomatic visual field constriction thought to be associated with vigabatrin has been reported. The current study investigated the visual fields and visual electrophysiology of eight patients with known vigabatrin-attributed visual field loss, three of whom were reported previously. Six of the patients were no longer receiving vigabatrin. METHODS: The central and peripheral fields were examined with the Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer. Full visual electrophysiology, including flash electroretinography (ERG), pattern electroretinography, multifocal ERG using the VERIS system, electro-oculography, and flash and pattern visual evoked potentials, was undertaken. RESULTS: Seven patients showed marked visual field constriction with some sparing of the temporal visual field. The eighth exhibited concentric constriction. Most electrophysiological responses were usually just within normal limits; two patients had subnormal Arden electro-oculography indices; and one patient showed an abnormally delayed photopic b wave. However, five patients showed delayed 30-Hz flicker b waves, and seven patients showed delayed oscillatory potentials. Multifocal ERG showed abnormalities that sometimes correlated with the visual field appearance and confirmed that the deficit occurs at the retinal level. CONCLUSION: Marked visual field constriction appears to be associated with vigabatrin therapy. The field defects and some electrophysiological abnormalities persist when vigabatrin therapy is withdrawn.