PURPOSE: To assess prospectively the relationship between nocturnal blood pressure reduction (dip) and progression of the visual field defect in patients with normal-tension glaucoma (NTG) or primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The subjects studied were 38 patients with glaucoma (23 patients with NTG, 15 patients with POAG), in whom 48-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was conducted, who were followed for at least 4 years, and in whom reliable visual field tests were performed at least 5 times. The progression was determined by the mean deviation (MD) slope analysis system installed in the Humphrey field analyzer Statpac program. Glaucoma patients with a dip of <10% were assigned to the nondipper group, those with a dip of 10%-20% to the tipper group, and those with a dip of >20% to the extreme dipper group. The dipper group was defined as physiologic dippers, while the nondipper and the extreme dipper groups were defined as nonphysiologic dippers, to study the relationship between the disturbance of the dip and progression of the visual field defect. RESULTS: Thirteen patients showed significant progression, while 25 patients did not. There were no significant differences in the mean intraocular pressure and follow-up period between the patients with progression and those without progression. Half (7/14) of the nondippers, 20% (4/20) of the dippers, and 50% (2/4) of the extreme dippers showed progression, indicating a tendency of progression in the nondipper and the extreme dipper groups. The nonphysiologic dippers had a higher incidence of progression compared with the physiologic dippers (P = 0.05). Among the glaucoma patients in the nondipper and dipper categories only, those with progression had significantly smaller dips (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that disturbance in the physiologic dip may be involved in the progression of glaucoma. Copyright Japanese Ophthalmological Society 2004
PURPOSE: To assess prospectively the relationship between nocturnal blood pressure reduction (dip) and progression of the visual field defect in patients with normal-tension glaucoma (NTG) or primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The subjects studied were 38 patients with glaucoma (23 patients with NTG, 15 patients with POAG), in whom 48-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was conducted, who were followed for at least 4 years, and in whom reliable visual field tests were performed at least 5 times. The progression was determined by the mean deviation (MD) slope analysis system installed in the Humphrey field analyzer Statpac program. Glaucomapatients with a dip of <10% were assigned to the nondipper group, those with a dip of 10%-20% to the tipper group, and those with a dip of >20% to the extreme dipper group. The dipper group was defined as physiologic dippers, while the nondipper and the extreme dipper groups were defined as nonphysiologic dippers, to study the relationship between the disturbance of the dip and progression of the visual field defect. RESULTS: Thirteen patients showed significant progression, while 25 patients did not. There were no significant differences in the mean intraocular pressure and follow-up period between the patients with progression and those without progression. Half (7/14) of the nondippers, 20% (4/20) of the dippers, and 50% (2/4) of the extreme dippers showed progression, indicating a tendency of progression in the nondipper and the extreme dipper groups. The nonphysiologic dippers had a higher incidence of progression compared with the physiologic dippers (P = 0.05). Among the glaucomapatients in the nondipper and dipper categories only, those with progression had significantly smaller dips (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that disturbance in the physiologic dip may be involved in the progression of glaucoma. Copyright Japanese Ophthalmological Society 2004
Authors: John C Hwang; Ranjith Konduru; Xinbo Zhang; Ou Tan; Brian A Francis; Rohit Varma; Mitra Sehi; David S Greenfield; Srinivas R Sadda; David Huang Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2012-05-17 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Mary E Charlson; Carlos Gustavo de Moraes; Alissa Link; Martin T Wells; Gregory Harmon; Janey C Peterson; Robert Ritch; Jeffrey M Liebmann Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2014-05-25 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Selva Baltan; Denise M Inman; Camelia A Danilov; Richard S Morrison; David J Calkins; Philip J Horner Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2010-04-21 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Jesús D Melgarejo; Joseph H Lee; Michele Petitto; Juan B Yépez; Felipe A Murati; Zhezhen Jin; Carlos A Chávez; Rosa V Pirela; Gustavo E Calmón; Winston Lee; Matthew P Johnson; Luis J Mena; Lama A Al-Aswad; Joseph D Terwilliger; Rando Allikmets; Gladys E Maestre; C Gustavo De Moraes Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2018-01-06 Impact factor: 12.079