OBJECTIVE: To evaluate central and peripheral retinal function in patients treated with vigabatrin, an antiepileptic drug associated with peripheral visual field constriction (VFC). METHODS: Six patients with epilepsy treated with vigabatrin as add-on therapy for at least 3 years were included in this observational case series. All patients underwent a clinical ophthalmologic examination, color vision testing, standard perimetry, and full-field and focal foveal cone electroretinography. Four patients, 3 of whom had VFC, completed specialized computerized static light- and dark-adapted perimetry. RESULTS: In 9 of 11 eyes tested, foveal cone electroretinographic amplitudes were at or below the lower limit of normal. Dark-adapted perimetry demonstrated abnormal rod-derived visual fields in the 3 patients with vigabatrin-attributed VFC, whereas rod-derived thresholds were within normal limits throughout the visual field in the patient who did not have VFC. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that vigabatrin not only impairs peripheral cone-derived function as manifested by VFC but also affects foveal cone electroretinographic amplitudes and rod-derived visual fields. The clinical dilemma regarding the use of vigabatrin therapy is further complicated since central as well as peripheral visual function seems to be adversely affected.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate central and peripheral retinal function in patients treated with vigabatrin, an antiepileptic drug associated with peripheral visual field constriction (VFC). METHODS: Six patients with epilepsy treated with vigabatrin as add-on therapy for at least 3 years were included in this observational case series. All patients underwent a clinical ophthalmologic examination, color vision testing, standard perimetry, and full-field and focal foveal cone electroretinography. Four patients, 3 of whom had VFC, completed specialized computerized static light- and dark-adapted perimetry. RESULTS: In 9 of 11 eyes tested, foveal cone electroretinographic amplitudes were at or below the lower limit of normal. Dark-adapted perimetry demonstrated abnormal rod-derived visual fields in the 3 patients with vigabatrin-attributed VFC, whereas rod-derived thresholds were within normal limits throughout the visual field in the patient who did not have VFC. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that vigabatrin not only impairs peripheral cone-derived function as manifested by VFC but also affects foveal cone electroretinographic amplitudes and rod-derived visual fields. The clinical dilemma regarding the use of vigabatrin therapy is further complicated since central as well as peripheral visual function seems to be adversely affected.