Comparing glaucoma progression on 24-2 and 10-2 visual field examinations

PLoS One. 2015 May 15;10(5):e0127233. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127233. eCollection 2015.

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the rate of mean deviation (MD) change on 24-2 versus 10-2 VFs in treated glaucomatous eyes with 5 or more examinations.

Methods: In a retrospective study, 24-2 and 10-2 VFs of 131 glaucoma patients (167 eyes) who had undergone at least 5 VFs examinations during their follow-up were analyzed. All these patients had VF defects both on 24-2 and 10-2 VFs. Rates of MD change were calculated using best linear unbiased predictions (BLUP).

Results: Median age, MD on 24-2 VF at baseline, number of VFs performed during follow-up and follow-up duration were 55 years, -16.9 dB, 9 and 9 years respectively. Median rate of MD change was significantly greater (p<0.001) on 10-2 VF (-0.26 dB/year; interquartile range [IQR]: -0.47, -0.11) compared to 24-2 VFs (-0.19 dB/year; IQR: -0.41, -0.03). Comparing the rates of MD change in eyes with different severities of VF loss (early [MD better than -6 dB], moderate [-6 dB to -12 dB], advanced [-12 to -20 dB] and severe [MD worse than -20 dB]) at baseline (based on the MD on 24-2 VF), median rate of MD change was comparable between 10-2 and 24-2 VFs in mild (-0.45 dB/year vs. -0.40 dB/year, P = 0.42) and moderate (-0.32 dB/year vs. -0.40 dB/year, P = 0.26) VF loss categories, while the same were significantly greater on 10-2 VFs in advanced (-0.28 dB/year vs. -0.21 dB/year, P = 0.04) and severe (-0.18 dB/year vs. -0.06 dB/year, P<0.001) VF loss categories.

Conclusions: In patients with VF defects both on 24-2 and 10-2 VFs, evaluating the rate of MD change on 10-2 VFs may help in better estimation of glaucoma progression, especially so in eyes with advanced glaucoma at baseline.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Aged
  • Disease Progression
  • Glaucoma / physiopathology*
  • Humans
  • Intraocular Pressure / physiology
  • Middle Aged
  • Physical Examination / methods
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Vision Disorders / physiopathology
  • Visual Field Tests / methods
  • Visual Fields / physiology*

Grants and funding

The authors declare funding from the following sources: Rao HL: Allergan (C); Begum VU: none; Khadka D: none; Mandal AK: none; Senthil S: none; Garudadri CS: Allergan (C), Merck (C), Alcon (C). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.