PURPOSE: This is a collaborative case-control study from Ophthalmology and Cardiology departments of a tertiary care hospital, designed to explore the relationship between coronary artery disease (CAD) and pseudoexfoliation syndrome (PEX). METHOD: In all, 50 patients with CAD proven by coronary angiography, and 50 controls with normal coronary angiographic findings were compared in terms of PEX, other vascular diseases, and retinal vascular findings. chi2-test and Student's t-test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The number of patients with PEX among CAD (+) patients was substantially larger than controls. In all, 28 of 50 CAD (+) patients and only 12 of 50 CAD (-) patients had PEX. PEX was significantly associated with CAD (P=0.001). When all patients were regrouped according to the presence of PEX, patients with PEX did not differ from patients without PEX in terms of age (P=0.360) and sex (P=0.507), but the prevalence of CAD was higher (P=0.001) and fundoscopic findings of vascular diseases were significantly more prominent (P=0.0001) in PEX (+) patients. DISCUSSION: We demonstrated statistically significant difference in the prevalence of PEX in CAD patients, and also in the prevalence of CAD in PEX (+) individuals. These were striking differences. We should consider the possibility of the presence of PEX in CAD patients; and the predisposition of PEX (+) persons for CAD, which necessitates a fundus examination for findings of systemic vascular diseases.
PURPOSE: This is a collaborative case-control study from Ophthalmology and Cardiology departments of a tertiary care hospital, designed to explore the relationship between coronary artery disease (CAD) and pseudoexfoliation syndrome (PEX). METHOD: In all, 50 patients with CAD proven by coronary angiography, and 50 controls with normal coronary angiographic findings were compared in terms of PEX, other vascular diseases, and retinal vascular findings. chi2-test and Student's t-test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The number of patients with PEX among CAD (+) patients was substantially larger than controls. In all, 28 of 50 CAD (+) patients and only 12 of 50 CAD (-) patients had PEX. PEX was significantly associated with CAD (P=0.001). When all patients were regrouped according to the presence of PEX, patients with PEX did not differ from patients without PEX in terms of age (P=0.360) and sex (P=0.507), but the prevalence of CAD was higher (P=0.001) and fundoscopic findings of vascular diseases were significantly more prominent (P=0.0001) in PEX (+) patients. DISCUSSION: We demonstrated statistically significant difference in the prevalence of PEX in CAD patients, and also in the prevalence of CAD in PEX (+) individuals. These were striking differences. We should consider the possibility of the presence of PEX in CAD patients; and the predisposition of PEX (+) persons for CAD, which necessitates a fundus examination for findings of systemic vascular diseases.