March 2012
Volume 53, Issue 14
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   March 2012
Identifying the Best Structural and Functional Parameters to Detect Glaucoma Progression
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Zach Nadler
    UPMC Eye Center, Univ of Pittsburgh Sch of Med, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
  • Richard A. Bilonick
    UPMC Eye Center, Univ of Pittsburgh Sch of Med, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Department of Biostatistics, Graduate School of Public Health,
    University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
  • Michele Iester
    UPMC Eye Center, Univ of Pittsburgh Sch of Med, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
  • Gadi Wollstein
    UPMC Eye Center, Univ of Pittsburgh Sch of Med, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
  • Hiroshi Ishikawa
    UPMC Eye Center, Univ of Pittsburgh Sch of Med, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Department of Bioengineering,
    University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
  • Larry Kagemann
    UPMC Eye Center, Univ of Pittsburgh Sch of Med, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Department of Bioengineering,
    University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
  • Jessica Nevins
    UPMC Eye Center, Univ of Pittsburgh Sch of Med, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
  • Ian A. Sigal
    UPMC Eye Center, Univ of Pittsburgh Sch of Med, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Department of Bioengineering,
    University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
  • Jay S. Duker
    Ophthalmology, New England Eye Center, Boston, Massachusetts
  • Joel S. Schuman
    UPMC Eye Center, Univ of Pittsburgh Sch of Med, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Department of Bioengineering,
    University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  Zach Nadler, None; Richard A. Bilonick, None; Michele Iester, None; Gadi Wollstein, None; Hiroshi Ishikawa, None; Larry Kagemann, None; Jessica Nevins, None; Ian A. Sigal, None; Jay S. Duker, Carl Zeiss Meditec (F), Optovue (F), Topcon (F); Joel S. Schuman, Carl Zeiss Meditec (P)
  • Footnotes
    Support  NIH R01-EY013178, NIH R01-EY013516, P30-EY008098; Eye and Ear Foundation (Pittsburgh, PA); Research to Prevent Blindness
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science March 2012, Vol.53, 219. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Zach Nadler, Richard A. Bilonick, Michele Iester, Gadi Wollstein, Hiroshi Ishikawa, Larry Kagemann, Jessica Nevins, Ian A. Sigal, Jay S. Duker, Joel S. Schuman; Identifying the Best Structural and Functional Parameters to Detect Glaucoma Progression. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2012;53(14):219.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : To identify the best parameters to detect glaucoma progression among visual field (VF) and optic nerve head (ONH) parameters.

Methods: : 110 eyes of 60 subjects (24 healthy, 48 glaucoma suspects and 38 glaucomatous eyes) had comprehensive ocular examination and ≥4 visits with reliable VF testing (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA) and good quality spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT; RTVue-100, Optovue, Freemont, CA) and scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (SLO; HRT III, Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany). Structural equation models (SEM) were constructed to compute the common latent factor measurement error for each device using standardized global parameters as provided by the devices along with clinical diagnosis and baseline age.

Results: : The median follow-up period was 3.93 years, and the median number of visits was 6.5. For VF, the Visual Field Index (VFI) showed statistically significantly better correlation with the common latent progression (ρ=0.93; confidence interval (CI): 0.76-1.00) than both mean deviation (MD) and pattern standard deviation (PSD). For SD-OCT the parameters with the highest correlation with latent progression were cup area (ρ=0.92; CI: 0.80-1.00) and rim area (ρ=-0.92; CI: -1.00--0.80) and statistically significantly better than other measured parameters. SLO also showed cup area (ρ=-0.85; CI: -1.00--0.73) and rim area (ρ=-0.85; CI: 0.74-1.00) to be the parameters most correlated with latent progression. For all three devices the diagnosis had similar effect and was statistically significant. Using latent progression scores for each eye derived from the SEM, there was poor correlation between VF and SD-OCT progression scores (r=0.17), SD-OCT and HRT (r=0.36), and HRT and VF (r=0.03).

Conclusions: : Cup and rim area were the most useful structural measurements of progression, while VFI was the most useful functional parameter. Even though SD-OCT and HRT quantify ONH structure there was a poor correlation between the devices in detecting progression.

Keywords: imaging methods (CT, FA, ICG, MRI, OCT, RTA, SLO, ultrasound) • visual fields 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×