Bianca N Susanna1, Nara G Ogata2, Fábio B Daga2, Carolina N Susanna1, Alberto Diniz-Filho3, Felipe A Medeiros4. 1. Duke Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California; ABC Foundation School of Medicine, Santo André, Brazil. 2. Duke Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California. 4. Duke Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California. Electronic address: felipe.medeiros@duke.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the associations between intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained by different tonometric methods and rates of visual field loss in a cohort of patients with glaucoma followed over time. DESIGN: Prospective, observational cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: This study included 213 eyes of 125 glaucomatous patients who were followed for an average of 2.4±0.6 years. METHODS: At each visit, IOP measurements were obtained using Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), the Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) (Reichert, Inc., Depew, NY), corneal-compensated IOP (IOPcc), and the ICare Rebound Tonometer (RBT) (Tiolat, Oy, Helsinki, Finland). Rates of visual field loss were assessed by standard automated perimetry (SAP) mean deviation (MD). Linear mixed models were used to investigate the relationship between mean IOP by each tonometer and rates of visual field loss over time, while adjusting for age, race, central corneal thickness, and corneal hysteresis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Strength of associations (R2) between IOP measurements from each tonometer and rates of SAP MD change over time. RESULTS: Average values for mean IOP over time measured by GAT, ORA, and RBT were 14.4±3.3, 15.2±4.2, and 13.4±4.2 mmHg, respectively. Mean IOPcc had the strongest relationship with SAP MD loss over time (R2 = 24.5%) and was significantly different from the models using mean GAT IOP (R2 = 11.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI] of the difference, 6.6-19.6) and mean RBT IOP (R2= 5.8%; 95% CI of the difference, 11.1-25.0). CONCLUSIONS: Mean ORA IOPcc was more predictive of rates of visual field loss than mean IOP obtained by GAT or RBT. By correcting for corneal-induced artifacts, IOPcc measurements may present significant advantages for predicting clinically relevant outcomes in patients with glaucoma.
PURPOSE: To investigate the associations between intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained by different tonometric methods and rates of visual field loss in a cohort of patients with glaucoma followed over time. DESIGN: Prospective, observational cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: This study included 213 eyes of 125 glaucomatouspatients who were followed for an average of 2.4±0.6 years. METHODS: At each visit, IOP measurements were obtained using Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), the Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) (Reichert, Inc., Depew, NY), corneal-compensated IOP (IOPcc), and the ICare Rebound Tonometer (RBT) (Tiolat, Oy, Helsinki, Finland). Rates of visual field loss were assessed by standard automated perimetry (SAP) mean deviation (MD). Linear mixed models were used to investigate the relationship between mean IOP by each tonometer and rates of visual field loss over time, while adjusting for age, race, central corneal thickness, and corneal hysteresis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Strength of associations (R2) between IOP measurements from each tonometer and rates of SAP MD change over time. RESULTS: Average values for mean IOP over time measured by GAT, ORA, and RBT were 14.4±3.3, 15.2±4.2, and 13.4±4.2 mmHg, respectively. Mean IOPcc had the strongest relationship with SAP MD loss over time (R2 = 24.5%) and was significantly different from the models using mean GAT IOP (R2 = 11.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI] of the difference, 6.6-19.6) and mean RBT IOP (R2= 5.8%; 95% CI of the difference, 11.1-25.0). CONCLUSIONS: Mean ORA IOPcc was more predictive of rates of visual field loss than mean IOP obtained by GAT or RBT. By correcting for corneal-induced artifacts, IOPcc measurements may present significant advantages for predicting clinically relevant outcomes in patients with glaucoma.
Authors: Claude F Burgoyne; J Crawford Downs; Anthony J Bellezza; J-K Francis Suh; Richard T Hart Journal: Prog Retin Eye Res Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 21.198
Authors: Jorge Manuel Martins Jorge; Jose M González-Méijome; Antonio Queirós; Paulo Fernandes; Manuel A Parafita Journal: J Glaucoma Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Mae O Gordon; Julia A Beiser; James D Brandt; Dale K Heuer; Eve J Higginbotham; Chris A Johnson; John L Keltner; J Philip Miller; Richard K Parrish; M Roy Wilson; Michael A Kass Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2002-06
Authors: Chunwei Zhang; Andrew J Tatham; Ricardo Y Abe; Alberto Diniz-Filho; Linda M Zangwill; Robert N Weinreb; Felipe A Medeiros Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2016-03-03 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Felipe A Medeiros; Daniel Meira-Freitas; Renato Lisboa; Tung-Mei Kuang; Linda M Zangwill; Robert N Weinreb Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2013-05-01 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Brandon J Wong; Sasan Moghimi; Linda M Zangwill; Mark Christopher; Akram Belghith; Eren Ekici; Christopher Bowd; Massimo A Fazio; Christopher A Girkin; Robert N Weinreb Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2019-11-23 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Danuta M Sampson; Danial Roshandel; Avenell L Chew; Yufei Wang; Paul G Stevenson; Matthew N Cooper; Elaine Ong; Lawrence Wong; Jonathan La; David Alonso-Caneiro; Enid Chelva; Jane C Khan; David D Sampson; Fred K Chen Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2021-05-03 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Ha Min Kim; William E McKee; Katarzyna B Malendowicz; Abinaya A Thenappan; Emmanouil Tsamis; Melvi D Eguia; C Gustavo De Moraes; Robert Ritch; Donald C Hood Journal: J Glaucoma Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 2.290
Authors: Laura A Edwards; Deanna J Taylor; Peter Campbell; Rakhee Shah; David F Edgar; David P Crabb Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-11-19 Impact factor: 2.692