Comparison of visual field progression in patients with normal pressure glaucoma between eyes with and without visual field loss that threatens fixation
Wl. Membrey et al., Comparison of visual field progression in patients with normal pressure glaucoma between eyes with and without visual field loss that threatens fixation, BR J OPHTH, 84(10), 2000, pp. 1154-1158
Aim-To compare the frequency and site of visual field progression and chang
es in visual acuity in patients with normal pressure glaucoma (NPG) with an
d without pre-existing visual field loss.
Method-Patients with normal tension glaucoma were selected who had at least
10 visual fields over 5 or more years of follow up and no other condition
that might influence the visual field or visual acuity. Alternate left and
right eyes were selected from patients in random order. These eyes were the
n subdivided according to visual field defect threatening fixation, visual
field defect not threatening fixation, and no visual field defect (fellow e
yes). Eyes were defined as showing a threat to fixation according to the pr
esence of a visual field defect involving one of more of four paracentral v
isual field locations. Pointwise linear regression analysis was applied to
each visual field series using PROGRESSOR software. Progression of visual f
ield loss was defined as the appearance of a regression slope 1 dB per year
or more with a significance of p<0.01, which remained consistent with the
addition of two of three successive visual fields to the series. The number
of patients showing progression and the number where progression occurred
in one of the four paracentral visual field locations was noted. The number
of eyes losing two or more lines of Snellen visual acuity over the follow
up period was also noted.
Results-174 eyes of 174 patients were selected. 106 eyes had visual field l
oss threatening fixation, 46 eyes had visual field loss that did not threat
en fixation, and 22 were fellow eyes with normal visual fields. The median
follow up was 7.2 years. Eight eyes (36.4%) in the "normal visual fields" g
roup, 31 eyes (67.4%) in the "visual field loss away from fixation" group,
and 87 eyes (82.1%) in the "threat to fixation" group showed progression in
any part of the visual field. Two eyes (9.1%) in the "normal visual fields
" group, nine eyes (19.6%) in the "visual field loss away from fixation" gr
oup, and 45 eyes (42.5%) in the "threat to fixation" group showed progressi
on at "threat to fixation". The Cox proportional hazards regression model s
howed an increased risk of progression at any part of the visual field for
female sex and a decreased risk for eyes with normal visual fields. For pro
gression at threat to fixation this model showed an increased risk with pre
existing threat to fixation. Eyes from older patients and those that went o
n to have progressive visual field loss at fixation were more likely to los
e two lines of Snellen visual acuity over the follow up period.
Conclusion-Since 20-30% of previously field damaged eyes and over 60% witho
ut prior field loss fail to demonstrate progressive visual field damage ove
r a long follow up it is recommended that normal pressure glaucoma patients
be monitored for progression and that potentially harmful therapy be withh
eld until progression is demonstrated. Although the presence of visual fiel
d loss that threatens fixation does not constitute an increased risk of vis
ual field progression it does indicate an increased risk of further loss of
visual field close to fixation which is in turn associated with loss of ce
ntral acuity. In the light of this finding, patients with visual field loss
that threatens fixation should be managed more aggressively.