Comparison of Clinical Characteristics and Progression Rates of Bilaterally and Unilaterally Progressing Glaucoma

Overview

Journal Korean J Ophthalmol

Specialty Ophthalmology

Date 2015 Feb 4

PMID 25646059

Citations 5

Authors

Daun Jeong

Kyung Rim Sung

Jung Hwa Na

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the clinical characteristics of unilaterally progressing glaucoma (UPG) and simultaneously bilaterally progressing glaucoma (BPG) in medically treated cases.

Methods: Primary open angle glaucoma patients were classified as having UPG or BPG according to an assessment of optic disc and retinal nerve fiber layer photographs and visual field analysis. Risk factors including the presence of systemic diseases (hypertension, diabetes, cerebrovascular accident, migraine, and dyslipidema) were compared between the UPG and BPG groups. Baseline characteristics and pre- and post-treatment intraocular pressure (IOP) were compared between the progressing eye (PE) and the non-progressing eye (NPE) within the same patient in the UPG group and between the faster progressing eye and the slower progressing eye in the BPG group.

Results: Among 343 patients (average follow-up period of 4.2 years), 43 were categorized into the UPG group and 31 into the BPG group. The prevalence of all analyzed systemic diseases did not differ between the two groups. PEs in the UPG group had more severe pathology in terms of baseline visual field parameters than NPEs (mean deviation -6.9 ± 5.7 vs. -2.9 ± 3.9 dB, respectively; p < 0.001). However, baseline IOP, mean follow-up IOP, and other clinical characteristics were not significantly different between the PE and the NPE in the UPG group. The progression rate was significantly higher in the faster progressing eye in patients with BPG than in the PE for patients with UPG (-3.43 ± 3.27 vs. -0.70 ± 1.26 dB/yr, respectively; p = 0.014).

Conclusions: There were no significant differences in the prevalence of systemic diseases between the UPG and BPG groups. Simultaneously bilaterally progressing patients showed much faster progression rates than those with a unilaterally progressing eye.

Citing Articles

The Achievement of IOP Target Among a Sample of Iraqi Patients with Glaucoma: A Retrospective Study.

Sadiq D, Mikhael E Clin Ophthalmol. 2024; 18:2107-2112.

PMID: 39051024 PMC: 11268619. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S478850.

Inter-eye correlation analysis of 24-h IOPs and glaucoma progression.

Dakroub M, Verma-Fuehring R, Agorastou V, Schon J, Hillenkamp J, Puppe F Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2022; 260(10):3349-3356.

PMID: 35501491 PMC: 9477895. DOI: 10.1007/s00417-022-05651-4.

Clinical Evaluation of Unilateral Open-Angle Glaucoma: A Two-Year Follow-Up Study.

Nam J, Kang Y, Sung M, Park S Chonnam Med J. 2021; 57(2):144-151.

PMID: 34123743 PMC: 8167448. DOI: 10.4068/cmj.2021.57.2.144.

A CNN-aided method to predict glaucoma progression using DARC (Detection of Apoptosing Retinal Cells).

Normando E, Yap T, Maddison J, Miodragovic S, Bonetti P, Almonte M Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2020; 20(7):737-748.

PMID: 32310684 PMC: 7115906. DOI: 10.1080/14737159.2020.1758067.

Longitudinal Analysis of Serum Autoantibody-Reactivities in Patients with Primary Open Angle Glaucoma and Optic Disc Hemorrhage.

Lorenz K, Beck S, Keilani M, Wasielica-Poslednik J, Pfeiffer N, Grus F PLoS One. 2016; 11(12):e0166813.

PMID: 28030545 PMC: 5193360. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166813.

References

Chen P, Park R . Visual field progression in patients with initially unilateral visual field loss from chronic open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2000; 107(9):1688-92. DOI: 10.1016/s0161-6420(00)00229-3. View

Casson R, Gupta A, Newland H, McGovern S, Muecke J, Selva D . Risk factors for primary open-angle glaucoma in a Burmese population: the Meiktila Eye Study. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2007; 35(8):739-44. DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2007.01619.x. View

Leske M, Nemesure B, He Q, Wu S, Hejtmancik J, Hennis A . Patterns of open-angle glaucoma in the Barbados Family Study. Ophthalmology. 2001; 108(6):1015-22. DOI: 10.1016/s0161-6420(01)00566-8. View

Drance S, Anderson D, Schulzer M . Risk factors for progression of visual field abnormalities in normal-tension glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2001; 131(6):699-708. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9394(01)00964-3. View

Kass M, Heuer D, Higginbotham E, Johnson C, Keltner J, Miller J . The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: a randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002; 120(6):701-13; discussion 829-30. DOI: 10.1001/archopht.120.6.701. View

Wong T, Klein B, Klein R, Knudtson M, Lee K . Refractive errors, intraocular pressure, and glaucoma in a white population. Ophthalmology. 2003; 110(1):211-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0161-6420(02)01260-5. View

Heijl A, Leske M, Bengtsson B, Bengtsson B, Hussein M . Measuring visual field progression in the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2003; 81(3):286-93. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0420.2003.00070.x. View

Iwase A, Suzuki Y, Araie M, Yamamoto T, Abe H, Shirato S . The prevalence of primary open-angle glaucoma in Japanese: the Tajimi Study. Ophthalmology. 2004; 111(9):1641-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.03.029. View

Kass M, Kolker A, Becker B . Prognostic factors in glaucomatous visual field loss. Arch Ophthalmol. 1976; 94(8):1274-6. DOI: 10.1001/archopht.1976.03910040146002. View

10.

Susanna R, Drance S, Douglas G . The visual prognosis of the fellow eye in uniocular chronic open-angle glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 1978; 62(5):327-9. PMC: 1043223. DOI: 10.1136/bjo.62.5.327. View

11.

Cartwright M, Anderson D . Correlation of asymmetric damage with asymmetric intraocular pressure in normal-tension glaucoma (low-tension glaucoma). Arch Ophthalmol. 1988; 106(7):898-900. DOI: 10.1001/archopht.1988.01060140044020. View

12.

Crichton A, Drance S, Douglas G, Schulzer M . Unequal intraocular pressure and its relation to asymmetric visual field defects in low-tension glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1989; 96(9):1312-4. DOI: 10.1016/s0161-6420(89)32721-7. View

13.

Sommer A, Tielsch J, Katz J, Quigley H, Gottsch J, Javitt J . Relationship between intraocular pressure and primary open angle glaucoma among white and black Americans. The Baltimore Eye Survey. Arch Ophthalmol. 1991; 109(8):1090-5. DOI: 10.1001/archopht.1991.01080080050026. View

14.

Bonomi L, Marchini G, Marraffa M, Bernardi P, De Franco I, Perfetti S . Prevalence of glaucoma and intraocular pressure distribution in a defined population. The Egna-Neumarkt Study. Ophthalmology. 1998; 105(2):209-15. DOI: 10.1016/s0161-6420(98)92665-3. View

15.

Berdahl J, Fautsch M, Stinnett S, Allingham R . Intracranial pressure in primary open angle glaucoma, normal tension glaucoma, and ocular hypertension: a case-control study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008; 49(12):5412-8. PMC: 2745832. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.08-2228. View

16.

Ramulu P . Glaucoma and disability: which tasks are affected, and at what stage of disease?. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2009; 20(2):92-8. PMC: 2692230. DOI: 10.1097/ICU.0b013e32832401a9. View

17.

Kim C, Kim T . Comparison of risk factors for bilateral and unilateral eye involvement in normal-tension glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008; 50(3):1215-20. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.08-1886. View

18.

Janz N, Musch D, Gillespie B, Wren P, Niziol L . Evaluating clinical change and visual function concerns in drivers and nondrivers with glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008; 50(4):1718-25. PMC: 3395081. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.08-2575. View

19.

Sung K, Lee S, Park S, Choi J, Kim S, Yun S . Twenty-four hour ocular perfusion pressure fluctuation and risk of normal-tension glaucoma progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009; 50(11):5266-74. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.09-3716. View

20.

Heijl A, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Leske M . Natural history of open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2009; 116(12):2271-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.06.042. View