» Articles » PMID: 21673592

Elevation of Intraocular Pressure in Glaucoma Patients After Automated Visual Field Testing

Overview
Journal J Glaucoma
Date 2011 Jun 16
PMID 21673592
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: To examine whether automated visual field (VF) testing may exert a short-term influence on subsequent intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement during the same visit.

Methods: We reviewed patients with primary open-angle glaucoma whose most recent visit occurred at a major academic institution from July to December 2009 and who had 3 visits without intervening changes in glaucoma management within the previous 5 years. Exclusion criteria were patient admittance of nonadherence with medical therapy and documented difficulty of IOP measurement. One hundred nine right eyes from 109 patients were included. IOP obtained within 30 minutes after VF testing was compared with IOP from the previous and next visits without VF testing. Subgroup analyses included the role of reliability of VF test performance, surgical versus medical IOP control, and different topical medications.

Results: The average IOP measured after VF testing was 14.9 ± 4.7 mm Hg, higher than both the previous (13.7 ± 4.4 mm Hg, P < 0.001) and next visits without VF examination (13.8 ± 4.4 mm Hg, P < 0.001). A total of 22.9% of patients experienced a more than 20% increase of IOP. Eyes with surgical control had less IOP elevation than eyes with medical control (3.1% ± 15.9% vs. 11.7% ± 17.4%, P = 0.009). Users of β-blockers or α-2-agonists had less IOP elevation than eyes controlled with prostaglandins or carbonic anhydrase inhibitors (0.9% ± 15.1% vs. 9.0% ± 12.3%, P = 0.030).

Conclusions: This retrospective study suggests that patients with primary open-angle glaucoma experience a small and transient increase in IOP after VF testing and that this effect may be lower after surgical pressure control.

Citing Articles

Exploring the relationship between accommodation and intraocular pressure: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Ambrosini G, Poletti S, Roberti G, Carnevale C, Manni G, Coco G Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2024; 263(1):3-22.

PMID: 39039270 PMC: 11807068. DOI: 10.1007/s00417-024-06565-z.


Influence of mental stress on intraocular pressure and visual field testing: is there a white coat syndrome in glaucoma?.

Keren S, Waisbourd M, Gomel N, Cohen Y, Kurtz S Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2021; 260(1):209-214.

PMID: 34463840 DOI: 10.1007/s00417-021-05315-9.


Comparison of Perimetric Outcomes from Melbourne Rapid Fields Tablet Perimeter Software and Humphrey Field Analyzer in Glaucoma Patients.

Kumar H, Thulasidas M J Ophthalmol. 2020; 2020:8384509.

PMID: 32908686 PMC: 7463344. DOI: 10.1155/2020/8384509.


Influence of automated visual field testing on intraocular pressure.

Bertaud S, Skarbek Borowski E, Abbas R, Baudouin C, Labbe A BMC Ophthalmol. 2020; 20(1):363.

PMID: 32907553 PMC: 7488059. DOI: 10.1186/s12886-020-01622-7.


Impact of Visual Field Testing on Intraocular Pressure Change Trends in Healthy People and Glaucoma Patients.

Li M, Zheng B, Wang Q, Sun X J Ophthalmol. 2020; 2020:7936205.

PMID: 32714610 PMC: 7355374. DOI: 10.1155/2020/7936205.


References
1.
Insel P . Seminars in medicine of the Beth Israel Hospital, Boston. Adrenergic receptors--evolving concepts and clinical implications. N Engl J Med. 1996; 334(9):580-5. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199602293340907. View

2.
Rebolleda G, Rodriguez-Villace C, Anton M, Munoz-Negrete F . Variations in intraocular pressure after visual field examination. J Glaucoma. 2004; 13(2):178-9. DOI: 10.1097/00061198-200404000-00017. View

3.
Ullian M . The role of corticosteriods in the regulation of vascular tone. Cardiovasc Res. 1999; 41(1):55-64. DOI: 10.1016/s0008-6363(98)00230-2. View

4.
Bausher L, Horio B . Regulation of cyclic AMP production in adult human ciliary processes. Exp Eye Res. 1995; 60(1):43-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0014-4835(05)80082-x. View

5.
RIPLEY H, Wolff H . Life situations, emotions, and glaucoma. Psychosom Med. 1950; 12(4):215-24. DOI: 10.1097/00006842-195007000-00001. View