Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The association of office intraocular pressure fluctuation in ocular hypertension with frequency doubling technology perimetry abnormality

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose To characterize intraocular pressure (IOP) and central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements of ocular hypertension (OHT) patients with and without frequency doubling technology (FDT) perimetry test abnormalities. Patients and methods In this prospective, observational, cross-sectional, comparative case series, one eye of 33 OHT patients was randomly chosen. All OHT patients had IOP ≥23 mmHg in 2 out of 3 measurements on the test day, normal appearing discs and nerve fiber layer, and normal white on white standard automated perimetry (SAP). Several IOP calculations (outpatient IOP, highest office IOP, mean office IOP, office IOP fluctuation, and office IOP peak), CCT, SAP and FDT parameters were compared between OHT patients with repeatable FDT perimetry abnormality and normal FDT perimetry. Results Eight (24%) of 33 OHT patients had an abnormal FDT perimetry test. The median office IOP fluctuation (5.0 vs 2.0, P = 0.007), office IOP peak (3.2 vs 1.0, P = 0.004), and FDT pattern standard deviation (PSD) (5.03 v 3.32, P = 0.000) were significantly higher in OHT patients with repeatable FDT perimetry test abnormalities compared to OHT patients with normal FDT perimetry test. Office IOP fluctuation and office IOP peak were significantly correlated with both number of significantly depressed FDT points and FDT PSD index. CCT measurements and SAP global indices did not differ significantly in OHT patients with and without FDT perimetry test abnormality. Conclusion Our results suggest that currently diagnosed OHT patients who have large office IOP fluctuations and office IOP peaks are more likely to have repeatable FDT perimetry test abnormalities. These results suggest that OHT patients with large IOP fluctuations and IOP peaks are more likely to have early glaucomatous damage, and this should be taken into account when assessing the risk of conversion to primary open angle glaucoma.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Brandt JD, et al (2002) The ocular hypertension treatment study. Baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 120:714–720; discussion 829–830

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Asrani S, Zeimer R, Wilensky J et al (2000) Large diurnal fluctuations in intraocular pressure are an independent risk factor in patients with glaucoma. J Glaucoma 9:134–142

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kerrigan-Baumrind LA, Quigley HA, Pease ME et al (2000) Number of ganglion cells in glaucoma eyes compared with threshold visual field tests in the same persons. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41:741–748

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Maddess T, Henry GH (1992) Performance of nonlinear visual units in ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Clin Vis Sci 7:371–383

    Google Scholar 

  5. Anderson AA, Johnson CA (2002) Mechanisms isolated by frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 43:398–401

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cello KE, Nelson-Quigg JM, Johnson CA (2000) Frequency doubling technology perimetry for detection of glaucomatous visual field loss. Am J Ophthalmol 129:314–322

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Iwasaki A, Sugita M (2002) Performance of glaucoma mass screening with only a visual field test using frequency doubling technology perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol 134:529–537

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Soliman MAE, Jong LAMS, Ismaeil AA et al (2002) Standard achromatic perimetry, short wavelength automated perimetry, and frequency doubling technology for detection of glaucoma damage. Ophthalmology 109:444–454

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dayanır V, Sakarya R, Özcura F et al (2004) Effect of corneal drying on central corneal thickness. J Glaucoma 13:6–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Johnson CA, Sample PA, Cioffi GA et al (2002) Structure and function evaluation (SAFE): I. criteria for glaucomatous visual field loss using standard automated perimetry (SAP) and short wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP). Am J Ophthalmol 134:177–185

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Medeiros FA, Sample PA, Weinreb RN et al (2003) Corneal thickness measurements and FDT perimetry abnormalities in ocular hypertensive eyes. Ophthalmology 110:1903–1908

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Jonas JB, Holbach L (2005) Central corneal thickness and thickness of the lamina cribrosa in human eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 46(4):1275–1279

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Jonas JB, Stroux A, Welten I et al (2005) Central corneal thickness corraleted with glaucoma damage and rate of progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 46(4):1269–1274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Medeiros FA, Sample PA, Weinreb RN et al (2004) Frequency doubling technology perimetry abnormalities as predictors of glaucomatous visual field loss. Am J Ophthalmol 137:863–871

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Leske MC, Heijl A, Hussein M et al (2003) Factors for glaucoma progression and the effect of treatment: the early manifest glaucoma trial. Arch Ophthalmol 121:48–56

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cello KE, Nelson-Quigg JM, Johnson CA (2000) Frequency Doubling Technology perimetry for detection of glaucomatous visual field loss. Am J Ophthalmol 129:314–322

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. BurnsteinY, Ellish NJ, Magbalon M et al (2000) Comparison of frequency doubling perimetry with Humphrey visual field analysis in a glaucoma practice. Am J Ophthalmol 129:328–333

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Patel SC, Friedman DS, Varadkar P et al (2000) Algorithm for interpreting the results of frequency doubling perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol 129:323–327

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Trible JR, Schultz RO, Robinson JC et al (2000) Accuracy of glaucoma detection with frequency-doubling perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol 129:740–745

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Wadood AC, Azuara-Blanco A, Aspinall P et al (2002) Sensitivity and specificity of frequency-doubling technology, tendency-oriented perimetry, and Humphrey Swedish interactive threshold algorithm-fast perimetry in a glaucoma practice. Am J Ophthalmol 133:327–332

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Stoutenbeek R, Heeg GP, Jansonius NM (2004) Frequency doubling perimetry screening mode compared to the full-threshold mode. Ophthal Physiol Opt 24:493–497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Landers JA, Goldberg I, Graham SL (2003) Detection of early visual field loss in glaucoma using frequency-doubling perimetry and short-wavelength automated perimetry. Arch Ophthalmol 121:1705–1710

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Chauhan BC, Johnson CA (1999) Test-retest variability of frequency-doubling perimetry and conventional perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal subjects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 40:648–656

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Heeg GP, Ponsioen TL, Jansonius NM (2003) Learning effect, normal range, and test-retest variability of frequency doubling perimetry as a function of age, perimetric experience, and the presence or absence of glaucoma. Ophthal Physiol Opt 23:535–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Horn FK, Wakili N, Junemann AM et al (2002) Testing for glaucoma with Frequency-Doubling perimetry in normals, ocular hypertensives, and glaucoma patients. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 240:658–665

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sample PA, Bosworth CF, Blumenthal EZ et al (2000) Visual function-specific perimetry for indirect comparison of different ganglion cell populations in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41:1783–1790

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Landers J, Goldberg I, Graham S (2000) A comparison of short wavelength automated perimetry with frequency doubling perimetry for the early detection of visual field loss in ocular hypertension. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 28:248–252

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Adnan Menderes University, Aydin, 09100, Turkey

    Volkan Dayanır & Sayime Aydin

  2. Department of Public Health, Adnan Menderes University, Aydin, 09100, Turkey

    Pinar Okyay

Authors
  1. Volkan Dayanır
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sayime Aydin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pinar Okyay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Volkan Dayanır.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dayanır, V., Aydin, S. & Okyay, P. The association of office intraocular pressure fluctuation in ocular hypertension with frequency doubling technology perimetry abnormality. Int Ophthalmol 28, 347–353 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-007-9149-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-007-9149-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation