PURPOSE: To compare the rates of retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness loss using optical coherence tomography (OCT) in progressing versus nonprogressing eyes using 4 methods to define functional progression. METHODS: Normal and glaucomatous eyes with ≥3 years of follow up were prospectively enrolled. Standard automated perimetry (Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm Standard 24-2) and OCT (Stratus OCT, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA) imaging were performed every 6 months in glaucomatous eyes. OCT imaging was performed annually in normal eyes. Functional progression was determined using early manifest glaucoma trial criterion, visual field index (VFI), Progressor software, and the 3-omitting method. RESULTS: Seventy-six eyes (46 glaucoma and 30 normal) of 38 patients were enrolled with a mean follow-up of 43.9 ± 5.02 months (range: 36 to 48 mo). Eleven eyes progressed using Progressor criterion, 5 eyes using VFI, 2 eyes using the 3-omitting method, and 2 eyes using Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial criterion. The annual rate of average RNFL loss (μm/y) was significantly greater (P<0.05) in progressing versus nonprogressing eyes using Progressor (-1.0 ± 1.3 vs. 0.02 ± 1.6), VFI (-2.1 ± 1.1 vs. -0.002 ± 1.4), and the 3-omitting method (-2.2 ± 0.2 vs. -0.1 ± 1.5). Mean rate (μm/y) of average and superior RNFL thickness change was similar (P>0.05) in nonprogressing glaucomatous eyes compared with normal eyes. Using linear mixed-effect models, mean (P<0.001) and peak (P=0.01) intraocular pressure were significantly associated with rate of average RNFL atrophy in glaucomatous eyes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite differences in criteria used to judge functional progression, eyes with standard automated perimetry progression have significantly greater rates of RNFL loss measured using OCT compared with nonprogressing eyes.
PURPOSE: To compare the rates of retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness loss using optical coherence tomography (OCT) in progressing versus nonprogressing eyes using 4 methods to define functional progression. METHODS: Normal and glaucomatous eyes with ≥3 years of follow up were prospectively enrolled. Standard automated perimetry (Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm Standard 24-2) and OCT (Stratus OCT, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA) imaging were performed every 6 months in glaucomatous eyes. OCT imaging was performed annually in normal eyes. Functional progression was determined using early manifest glaucoma trial criterion, visual field index (VFI), Progressor software, and the 3-omitting method. RESULTS: Seventy-six eyes (46 glaucoma and 30 normal) of 38 patients were enrolled with a mean follow-up of 43.9 ± 5.02 months (range: 36 to 48 mo). Eleven eyes progressed using Progressor criterion, 5 eyes using VFI, 2 eyes using the 3-omitting method, and 2 eyes using Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial criterion. The annual rate of average RNFL loss (μm/y) was significantly greater (P<0.05) in progressing versus nonprogressing eyes using Progressor (-1.0 ± 1.3 vs. 0.02 ± 1.6), VFI (-2.1 ± 1.1 vs. -0.002 ± 1.4), and the 3-omitting method (-2.2 ± 0.2 vs. -0.1 ± 1.5). Mean rate (μm/y) of average and superior RNFL thickness change was similar (P>0.05) in nonprogressing glaucomatous eyes compared with normal eyes. Using linear mixed-effect models, mean (P<0.001) and peak (P=0.01) intraocular pressure were significantly associated with rate of average RNFL atrophy in glaucomatous eyes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite differences in criteria used to judge functional progression, eyes with standard automated perimetry progression have significantly greater rates of RNFL loss measured using OCT compared with nonprogressing eyes.
Authors: Nicholas G Strouthidis; Andrew Scott; Neena M Peter; David F Garway-Heath Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Gadi Wollstein; Joel S Schuman; Lori L Price; Ali Aydin; Paul C Stark; Ellen Hertzmark; Edward Lai; Hiroshi Ishikawa; Cynthia Mattox; James G Fujimoto; Lelia A Paunescu Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2005-04
Authors: Fiona Costello; Stuart Coupland; William Hodge; Gianni R Lorello; Jeannie Koroluk; Y Irene Pan; Mark S Freedman; David H Zackon; Randy H Kardon Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Y Huang; A V Cideciyan; G I Papastergiou; E Banin; S L Semple-Rowland; A H Milam; S G Jacobson Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Ziqiang Wu; Matti Vazeen; Rohit Varma; Vikas Chopra; Alexander C Walsh; Laurie D LaBree; Srinivas R Sadda Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2007-03-23 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: S Anand Trip; Patricio G Schlottmann; Stephen J Jones; Wai-Yung Li; David F Garway-Heath; Alan J Thompson; Gordon T Plant; David H Miller Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2006-01-27 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Michael R Banitt; Lori M Ventura; William J Feuer; Eleonore Savatovsky; Gabriel Luna; Olga Shif; Brandon Bosse; Vittorio Porciatti Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2013-03-28 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Neel Dave Pasricha; Paramjit Kaur Bhullar; Christine Shieh; Christian Viehland; Oscar Mijail Carrasco-Zevallos; Brenton Keller; Joseph Adam Izatt; Cynthia Ann Toth; Pratap Challa; Anthony Nanlin Kuo Journal: Indian J Ophthalmol Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 1.848