Journal of Current Glaucoma Practice

Register      Login

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE 1 ( January-April, 2019 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Peak, Fluctuation, or Mean? A Correlation Analysis of Long-term Intraocular Pressure Variation Parameters in Patients with Stable Glaucoma

Ana Luiza B Scoralick, Carolina PB Gracitelli, Diego T Dias, Izabela Almeida, Michele Ushida, Syril Dorairaj, Fábio N Kanadani, Augusto Paranhos, Tiago S Prata

Keywords : Intraocular pressure fluctuation, Intraocular pressure peak, Stable glaucoma

Citation Information : Scoralick AL, Gracitelli CP, Dias DT, Almeida I, Ushida M, Dorairaj S, Kanadani FN, Paranhos A, Prata TS. Peak, Fluctuation, or Mean? A Correlation Analysis of Long-term Intraocular Pressure Variation Parameters in Patients with Stable Glaucoma. J Curr Glaucoma Pract 2019; 13 (1):28-31.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10078-1240

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 00-04-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim: To perform a correlation analysis between long-term intraocular pressure (IOP) variation parameters (mean, peak, and fluctuation) in patients with stable open-angle glaucoma (OAG). Materials and methods: A cross-sectional observational study was carried out, in which patients with stable OAG were consecutively enrolled. All patients had to have glaucomatous optic neuropathy and characteristic visual field (VF) defects. Key inclusion criteria were ≥5 VF tests, ≥3 disc photographs, and ≥3 years of follow-up without any changes in current medical regimen. Stable OAG was defined as nonprogressive VF results and absence of anatomical changes for at least 3 years. Long-term IOP variation parameters were obtained from isolated IOP measurements from each visit (minimum of five IOP measurements). The main outcome measure was the correlation between these IOP variation parameters. Results: Of the 63 patients studied, 37 (59%) were women, and the mean age was 61 ± 12 years. Among all the analyses, IOP mean and peak had the strongest correlation (r = 0.94; 95% CI = 0.92–0.97; p < 0.001). There were also significant correlations between IOP peak and IOP fluctuation (r = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.75–0.90; p < 0.001), and mean IOP and IOP fluctuation (r = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.43–0.75; p < 0.001). Conclusion: Most long-term IOP variation parameters evaluated seem to be highly correlated. Notably, the correlation between mean IOP and IOP peak was the strongest one. We believe this fact should be taken into consideration as their inclusion as individual variables in a multiple regression model could lead to misinterpretation of the data. Clinical significance: Different well-designed studies are conflicting regarding which long-term IOP variation parameter is more clinically relevant. Our findings suggest that collinearity issues could explain in part the discrepant results among these studies evaluating the relationship between long-term IOP variation parameters and glaucoma prognosis.


PDF Share
  1. Quigley HA, Tielsch JM, et al. Rate of progression in open-angle glaucoma estimated from cross-sectional prevalence of visual field damage. Am J Ophthalmol 1996;122(3):355–363. DOI: 10.1016/S0002- 9394(14)72062-8.
  2. Leske MC, Heijl A, et al. Predictors of long-term progression in the early manifest glaucoma trial. Ophthalmology 2007;114(11):1965–1972. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.03.016.
  3. Sit AJ, Nau CB, et al. Circadian variation of aqueous dynamics in young healthy adults. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008;49(4):1473–1479. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.07-1139.
  4. Kotecha A, Crabb DP, et al. The relationship between diurnal variations in intraocular pressure measurements and central corneal thickness and corneal hysteresis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009;50(9):4229–4236. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.08-2955.
  5. Oltulu R, Satir tav G, et al. The ef fect of dehydration and fasting on corneal biomechanical properties and intraocular pressure. Eye Contact Lens 2016;42(6):392–394. DOI: 10.1097/ICL.0000000000000220.
  6. Pimentel LG, Gracitelli CP, et al. Association between Glucose levels and intraocular pressure: pre-and postprandial analysis in diabetic and nondiabetic patients. J Ophthalmol 2015;2015:832058. DOI: 10.1155/2015/832058.
  7. Heijl A, Leske MC, et al. Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120(10):1268–1279. DOI: 10.1001/archopht.120.10.1268.
  8. Nemesure B, Honkanen R, et al. Incident open-angle glaucoma and intraocular pressure. Ophthalmology 2007;114(10):1810–1815. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.04.003.
  9. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. Diurnal IOP fluctuation: not an independent risk factor for glaucomatous visual field loss in high-risk ocular hypertension. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2005;243(6):513–518. DOI: 10.1007/s00417-004-1103-8.
  10. Lichter PR, Musch DC, et al. Interim clinical outcomes in the collaborative initial glaucoma treatment study comparing initial treatment randomized to medications or surgery. Ophthalmology 2001;108(11):1943–1953. DOI: 10.1016/S0161-6420 (01)00873-9.
  11. Weinreb RN, Garway-Heath DF, et al. World Glaucoma Association Consensus. Diagnosis of Primary Open Angle Glaucoma 2016.
  12. Medeiros FA, Weinreb RN, et al. Long-term intraocular pressure fluctuations and risk of conversion from ocular hypertension to glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2008;115(6):934–940. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.08.012.
  13. Caprioli J, Coleman AL. Intraocular pressure fluctuation a risk factor for visual field progression at low intraocular pressures in the advanced glaucoma intervention study. Ophthalmology 2008;115(7):1123–1129. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.10.031.
  14. De Moraes CG, Juthani VJ, et al. Risk factors for visual field Progression in treated glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2011;129(5):562–568. DOI: 10.1001/archophthalmol.2011.72.
  15. Caprioli J, Varma R. Intraocular pressure: modulation as treatment for glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2011;152(3):340–344. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2011.05.029.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.