Association between Rates of Visual Field Progression and Intraocular Pressure Measurements Obtained by Different Tonometers.
Association between Rates of Visual Field Progression and Intraocular Pressure Measurements Obtained by Different Tonometers.
复制标题
视野进展率与不同眼压计获得的眼压测量值之间的关联。
DOI：
10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.07.031
复制
发表时间：
2019
期刊：
影响因子：
13.7
通讯作者：
Medeiros,FelipeA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Susanna,BiancaN;Ogata,NaraG;Daga,FábioB;Susanna,CarolinaN;Diniz-Filho,Alberto;Medeiros,FelipeA
目的探讨不同眼压测量方法获得的眼压 (IOP) 测量值与青光眼患者队列随时间推移的视野丧失率之间的关联。设计前瞻性、观察性队列研究。参与者本研究包括 125 名青光眼患者的 213 只眼睛，平均随访时间为 2.4±0.6 年。方法每次访视时，IOP 使用 Goldmann 压平眼压计 (GAT)、眼反应分析仪 (ORA)（Reichert, Inc., Depew, NY）、角膜补偿 IOP (IOPcc) 和 ICare 回弹眼压计 (RBT)（Tiolat, Oy, Helsinki,Finland）获得测量结果。通过标准自动视野检查（SAP）平均偏差（MD）评估视野丧失率。使用线性混合模型研究每个眼压计的平均 IOP 与随时间推移的视野丧失率之间的关系，同时根据年龄、种族、中央角膜厚度和角膜滞后进行调整。主要结果测量每个眼压计的 IOP 测量值与 SAP MD 随时间变化率之间的关联强度 (R2)。结果 GAT、ORA 和 RBT 测量的平均 IOP 随时间变化的平均值为 分别为14.4±3.3、15.2±4.2和13.4±4.2毫米汞柱。随着时间的推移，平均 IOPcc 与 SAP MD 损失的关系最强 (R2= 24.5%)，并且与使用平均 GAT IOP（R2= 11.1%；差异的 95% 置信区间 [CI]，6.6–19.6）和平均 RBT IOP（R2= 5.8%；差异的 95% CI，11.1–25.0）的模型显着不同。 结论 平均 ORA IOPcc更多 与通过 GAT 或 RBT 获得的平均 IOP 相比，可预测视野丧失率。通过校正角膜引起的伪影，IOPcc 测量可能在预测青光眼患者的临床相关结果方面具有显着优势。
PurposeTo 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.DesignProspective, observational cohort study.ParticipantsThis study included 213 eyes of 125 glaucomatous patients who were followed for an average of 2.4±0.6 years.MethodsAt 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 MeasuresStrength of associations (R2) between IOP measurements from each tonometer and rates of SAP MD change over time.ResultsAverage 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 IOPcchad 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).ConclusionsMean ORA IOPccwas 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.