DOCSLIB.ORG

Predictive Factors for Glaucomatous Visual Field Progression in the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Predictive Factors for Glaucomatous Visual Field Progression in the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study Predictive Factors for Glaucomatous Visual Field Progression in the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study Kouros Nouri-Mahdavi, MD,1 Douglas Hoffman, BA,1 Anne L. Coleman, MD, PhD,1 Gang Liu, MS,2 Gang Li, PhD,2 Douglas Gaasterland, MD,3 Joseph Caprioli, MD1 Purpose: To investigate the risk factors associated with visual field (VF) progression in the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS) with pointwise linear regression (PLR) analysis of serial VFs. Design: Prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial. Participants: Five hundred nine eyes of 401 patients from the AGIS with a baseline VF score of Յ16, Ն7VF examinations, and Ն3 years of follow-up were selected. Main Outcome Measure: Visual field progression. Methods: This is a cohort study of patients enrolled in a prospective randomized clinical trial (AGIS). Worsening of a test location on PLR analysis was defined as a change of threshold sensitivity of Ն1.00 decibels a year, with PՅ0.01. Visual field progression was defined as worsening of at least 2 test locations within a Glaucoma Hemifield Test cluster with PLR analysis. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine risk factors associated with VF worsening. Intraocular pressure (IOP) fluctuation was defined as standard deviation of the IOP at all visits after the initial surgery. Results: The mean (Ϯ standard deviation) follow-up time and baseline AGIS score were 7.4 (Ϯ1.7) years and 7.7 (Ϯ4.4), respectively. Visual field progression was detected with PLR analysis in 151 eyes (30%). Older age at the initial intervention (P ϭ 0.0012; odds ratio [OR], 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11–1.50), larger IOP fluctuation (P ϭ 0.0013; OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.12–1.54), increasing number of glaucoma interventions (P ϭ 0.01; OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.14–2.64), and longer follow-up (P ϭ 0.02; OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03–1.38) were associated with increased odds of VF progression. When regression analyses were repeated in eyes with and without a history of cataract extraction, IOP fluctuation was the only variable to be consistently associated with VF progression. Conclusion: Both increasing age and greater IOP fluctuation increase the odds of VF progression by 30% (for each 5-year increment in age and 1-mmHg increase in IOP fluctuation). The higher risk conferred by IOP fluctuation was consistently observed in eyes with and without a history of cataract extraction. Ophthalmology 2004;111:1627–1635 © 2004 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Over the last 2 decades a number of studies have addressed the issue of risk factors associated with or predictive for glaucoma progression.1–21 A better understanding of clini- Originally received: January 7, 2004. Accepted: February 9, 2004. Manuscript no. 240023. cal risk factors for worsening of glaucoma may help us 1 Glaucoma Division, Jules Stein Eye Institute, University of California develop new strategies to improve glaucoma care. A major Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. obstacle has been the lack of a uniformly accepted and 2 Department of Biostatistics, UCLA School of Public Health, Los Ange- efficient approach to detect glaucoma progression. Evalua- les, California. tion of visual field (VF) series remains the clinical method 3 University Ophthalmology Consultants of Washington, Washington, DC. most frequently used to assess the course of glaucoma and Presented at: American Academy of Ophthalmology Annual Meeting, the efficacy of its treatment. November, 2003; Anaheim, California. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS) Supported by an unrestricted grant from Research to Prevent Blindness, used a single method for longitudinal evaluation of VFs. New York, New York, and the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Due to the lack of a gold standard and only fair concordance Maryland (grant no.: R01 EY12738). among various analytic methods, this could cause important The authors do not have any commercial or proprietary interest in any of associations to be missed or spurious ones to be detected. the products or companies cited in the article. Likewise, they have no We compared the results of an independent approach, point- financial interest in and have not received payment as a consultant, re- viewer, or evaluator from any of the companies mentioned. wise linear regression (PLR) analysis, with the AGIS 22 Correspondence to Joseph Caprioli, MD, Glaucoma Division, Jules Stein method in a subgroup of patients from that study. The 2 Eye Institute, 100 Stein Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90095. E-mail: methods were concordant in two thirds of study eyes. [email protected]. The primary objective of this report is to identify the risk © 2004 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology ISSN 0161-6420/04/$–see front matter 1627 Published by Elsevier Inc. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.02.017 Ophthalmology Volume 111, Number 9, September 2004 factors associated with progression of VF damage in the omitting the last threshold in a series and (2) after deleting the AGIS with PLR analysis to evaluate sequential VFs for threshold before last for the same series. This approach has been clinically and statistically significant change. shown, in simulation experiments, to be more specific than using all the data points for a single regression analysis, and it maintains a sensitivity comparable to other stringent algorithms used for the same purpose, such as two of two5 or three of four.4,6,7 Regression Materials and Methods slopes were considered statistically and clinically significant if Ն1.00 decibels (dB)/year or ՅϪ1.0 dB/year in the presence of The AGIS design and methods are described in detail elsewhere PՅ0.01. and are summarized here.2,23 Thirty-five- to 80-year-old phakic For evaluation of VF series, we used the most rigorous and patients with open-angle glaucoma no longer controlled by max- clinically relevant set of criteria explored in the aforementioned imally tolerated medical treatment were recruited. Eligible eyes investigation, the 2-point Glaucoma Hemifield Test change crite- had a best-corrected visual acuity (VA) score of at least 56 letters rion. According to this, a VF series is considered to be changing if (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study) and met specified 2 test locations belonging to the same Glaucoma Hemifield Test criteria for combinations of consistently elevated intraocular pres- cluster demonstrate change in the same direction. This set of sure (IOP), glaucomatous VF defect, and optic disc rim deteriora- criteria was found to be the most conservative among different tion.2 Between 1988 and 1992, investigators at 12 participating PLR approaches. It yielded the smallest number of progressing VF AGIS clinical centers enrolled 789 eyes of 591 patients. Eyes were series, minimized the number of improving VF series, and dem- randomly assigned to 1 of 2 surgical intervention sequences: argon onstrated the highest agreement with AGIS criteria. laser trabeculoplasty (ALT)–trabeculectomy–trabeculectomy Visual field progression according to AGIS criteria was defined (ATT) or trabeculectomy–ALT–trabeculectomy (TAT). Data in as the first occurrence in an eye, at 3 consecutive 6-month visits, this report are based on a database closure of March 31, 2001. The of worsening in the VF defect score of Ն4 from the baseline value. institutional review boards at each of the participating centers Changes in the AGIS VF defect score were measured from prein- approved the AGIS protocol, and all patients gave informed con- tervention reference values. sent. Visual field outcomes from PLR were classified as progressing Visual field tests were conducted with a Humphrey Visual or nonprogressing. Improving and stable eyes were categorized as Field Analyzer I (Carl Zeiss Ophthalmic Systems, Inc., Dublin, nonprogressing. Associations between VF progression and various CA) set for the central 24-2 threshold test, size III white stimulus, preoperative and postoperative potential risk factors were evalu- and full threshold strategy, with the foveal threshold test turned on. ated with multivariate logistic regression.25 The 24-2 program of the Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer records It has been shown that both eyes of the same patient are at least data from 55 locations in the VF, all of which, except the locations partially correlated with respect to progression of the VF.8 We above and below the blind spot and the foveal threshold, are used used a generalized linear mixed model to account for the intereye for calculating the AGIS VF score.3 Scoring is based on the correlation. The generalized linear mixed model is a commonly number, pattern, and depth of depression of threshold sensitivities used random-effects model that permits the data to exhibit corre- as found in the Humphrey total deviation plot. Points are awarded lation and nonconstant variability and allows the response to come for the presence of a nasal defect (a cluster of Ն3 depressed from several distributions such as binomial, Poisson, and ␥. locations in the nasal field), nasal step (Ն1 depressed locations in Preoperative and postoperative factors that were associated the nasal field, in the absence of depression in any of the 3 with VF progression in univariate analyses (␹2 test, unpaired t test, locations on the opposite side of the horizontal midline), and or Wilcoxon rank sum test, depending on the type of data) at a P hemifield defect (cluster of Ն3 depressed sites in a hemifield). The value of Յ0.20 were included in the final model. In addition, we translation of an array of VF thresholds into a single number included all the variables that might potentially predict or con- simplifies the comparison of test results and the determination of found detection of VF progression from a clinical point of view progression or stability. Visual field defect scores ranged from 0 (Table 1). Mean IOP was calculated by averaging all the available (no defect) to 20 (advanced glaucoma).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Visual Field Test
    EYE FACTS visual field test Your visual field refers to how much you can see around you, including objects in your peripheral (side) vision. This test produces a map of your field of vision. Visual field tests help your ophthalmologist (Eye M.D.) monitor any loss of vision and diagnose eye problems and disease. Visual field testing is used to monitor peripheral, or side, vision. HOW IS A VISUAL FIELD TEST PERFORMED? The test is performed with a large, bowl-shaped in- Normal visual field Severe visual loss strument called a perimeter. In order to test one eye at a time, one of your eyes is temporarily patched during the test. You will be seated and positioned comfortably in front of the perimeter and asked to look straight ahead at a fixed spot (the fixation target). The computer randomly flashes points of light around the bowl-shaped perimeter. When you see a light, press the indicator button. It is very important These grids are results of visual field tests.T he dark to always keep looking straight ahead. Do not move black shaded areas show where loss of vision has your eyes to look for the target; wait until it appears occurred. in your side vision. It is normal for some of the lights to be difficult to see. A delay in seeing a light does not necessarily mean your field of vision is damaged. If you need to rest during the test, tell the technician and they will pause the test until you are ready to continue. Your ophthalmologist will interpret the results of your test and discuss them with you.
    [Show full text]
  • Optic Disc and Macular Vessel Density Measured by Optical
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Optic Disc and Macular Vessel Density Measured by Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography in Open-Angle and Angle-Closure Glaucoma Tzu-Yu Hou1,2, Tung-Mei Kuang1,2, Yu-Chieh Ko1,2, Yu-Fan Chang1,2, Catherine Jui-Ling Liu1,2 & Mei-Ju Chen1,2* There is distinct pathogenesis between primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) and primary angle- closure glaucoma (PACG). Although elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) is the major risk factor for glaucoma, non-IOP risk factors such as vascular abnormalities and lower systolic/diastolic perfusion pressure may play a role in the pathogenic process. This study aimed to compare the vessel density (VD) in the optic disc and macula using optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) between POAG and PACG eyes. Thirty-two POAG eyes, 30 PACG eyes, and 39 control eyes were included. All the optic disc VD parameters except the inside disc VD were signifcantly lower in glaucomatous eyes than in control eyes. Compared with PACG eyes, only the inferior temporal peripapillary VD was signifcantly lower in POAG eyes. The parafoveal VD was signifcantly lower in each quadrant in glaucomatous eyes than in control eyes. The central macular and parafoveal VD did not difer between POAG and PACG eyes. In conclusion, the inferior temporal peripapillary VD was signifcantly reduced in POAG eyes compared with PACG eyes, while PACG eyes showed a more evenly distributed reduction in the peripapillary VD. The distinct patterns of VD change may be associated with the diferent pathogenesis between POAG and PACG. Glaucoma is an optic neuropathy characterised by progressive loss of retinal ganglion cells and their axons accompanied by corresponding visual feld (VF) defects.
    [Show full text]
  • Physical Eye Examination
    Physical Eye Examination Kaevalin Lekhanont, MD Department of Ophthalmology Ramathibodi Hospp,ital, Mahidol Universit y Outline • Visual acuity (VA) testing – Distant VA test – Pinhole test – Near VA test • Visual field testing • Record and interpretations Outline • Penlight examination •Swingggping penli ght test • Direct ophthalmoscopy – Red reflex examination • Schiotz tonometry • RdditttiRecord and interpretations Conjunctiva, Sclera Retina Cornea Iris Retinal blood vessels Fovea Pupil AtAnteri or c ham ber Vitreous Aqueous humor Lens Optic nerve Trabecular meshwork Ciliary body Choriod and RPE Function evaluation • Visual function – Visual acuity test – Visual field test – Refraction • Motility function Anatomical evaluation Visual acuity test • Distant VA test • Near VA test Distance VA test Snellen’s chart • 20 ฟุตหรือ 6 เมตร • วัดที่ละขาง ตาขวากอนตาซาย • ออานทละตาานทีละตา แถวบนลงลแถวบนลงลางาง • บันทึกแถวลางสุดที่อานได Pinhole test VA with pinhole (PH) Refractive error emmetitropia myypopia hyperopia VA record 20/200 ผูปวยสามารถอานต ัวเลขทมี่ ี ขนาดใหญขนาดใหญพอทคนปกตพอที่คนปกติ สามารถอานไดจากท ี่ระยะ 200 ฟตฟุต แตแตผผปูปวยอานไดจากวยอานไดจาก ที่ระยะ 20 ฟุต 20/20 Distance VA test • ถาอานแถวบนสุดไไไมได ใหเดินเขาใกล chthart ทีละกาวจนอานได (10/200, 5/200) • Counting finger 2ft - 1ft - 1/2ft • Hand motion • Light projection • Light perception • No light perception (NLP) ETDRS Chart Most accurate Illiterate E chart For children age ≥ 3.5 year Near VA test Near chart •14 นวิ้ หรอื 33 เซนตเมตริ • วัดที่ละขาง ตาขวากอนตาซาย • อานทีละตา แถวบนลงลาง
    [Show full text]
  • An Investigation of Visual Field Test Parameters in Glaucoma, Patterns Of
    An investigation of visual field test parameters in glaucoma, patterns of visual field loss in diabetics and multispectral imaging of the optic nerve head in glaucoma A thesis submitted to The University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Medical and Human Sciences 2012 Yanfang Wang School of Medicine (Human Development) 1 CONTENTS Title page……………………………………………………………1 Contents……………………………………………………….........2 List of Tables………………………………………………………..9 List of Figures……………………………………………………..10 List of Abbreviations……………………………………………...14 Abstract …………………………………………………………...16 Declaration………………………………………………………...17 Copyright statement………………………………………………17 Acknowledgment……………………………………………...…..19 1. Rationale of the study…………………………………………..20 2. Glaucoma……………………………………………………….24 2.1- Classification of glaucoma……………………………………….........24 2.2 - Clinical assessment in glaucoma……………………………………..27 2.2.1- IOP measurement………………………………………………..27 2.2.2 - Examination of structural and functional loss in glaucoma….28 2.3 - Management…………………………………………………………..32 3. Visual field testing……………………………………………..33 3.1 - Stimuli and background……………………………………………...33 3.2 - Test strategies………………………………………………………….34 3.2.1 - Frequency-of-seeing (FOS) curve and threshold………………34 3.2.2 - Supra-threshold strategy………………………………………..36 2 3.2.3 - Threshold strategy……………………………………………….38 3.2.3.1 - Full threshold, Fastpac and SITA………………………….38 3.2.3.2 - 30-2, 24-2 and 10-2 stimulus distributions…………………41 3.3 - Interpretation of results……………………………………………...42 3.3.1
    [Show full text]
  • Bass – Glaucomatous-Type Field Loss Not Due to Glaucoma
    Glaucoma on the Brain! Glaucomatous-Type Yes, we see lots of glaucoma Field Loss Not Due to Not every field that looks like glaucoma is due to glaucoma! Glaucoma If you misdiagnose glaucoma, you could miss other sight-threatening and life-threatening Sherry J. Bass, OD, FAAO disorders SUNY College of Optometry New York, NY Types of Glaucomatous Visual Field Defects Paracentral Defects Nasal Step Defects Arcuate and Bjerrum Defects Altitudinal Defects Peripheral Field Constriction to Tunnel Fields 1 Visual Field Defects in Very Early Glaucoma Paracentral loss Early superior/inferior temporal RNFL and rim loss: short axons Arcuate defects above or below the papillomacular bundle Arcuate field loss in the nasal field close to fixation Superotemporal notch Visual Field Defects in Early Glaucoma Nasal step More widespread RNFL loss and rim loss in the inferior or superior temporal rim tissue : longer axons Loss stops abruptly at the horizontal raphae “Step” pattern 2 Visual Field Defects in Moderate Glaucoma Arcuate scotoma- Bjerrum scotoma Focal notches in the inferior and/or superior rim tissue that reach the edge of the disc Denser field defects Follow an arcuate pattern connected to the blind spot 3 Visual Field Defects in Advanced Glaucoma End-Stage Glaucoma Dense Altitudinal Loss Progressive loss of superior or inferior rim tissue Non-Glaucomatous Etiology of End-Stage Glaucoma Paracentral Field Loss Peripheral constriction Hereditary macular Loss of temporal rim tissue diseases Temporal “islands” Stargardt’s macular due
    [Show full text]
  • Visual Field & Otc Tests Care Instructions
    DR. CAROLYN ANDERSON EYE SURGERY CARE INSTRUCTIONS VISUAL FIELD & OTC TESTS To ensure the health of your Visual Field Test eye(s), please read this information sheet carefully. Your visual field is the entire area that you can see when the eye is forward, including your peripheral vision. As most of us use two eyes, the overlapping fields allow you to see in an arc of 180 degrees. Certain diseases can cause a loss of visual field, and unless If you need to cancel your the defect is extensive, you will not be aware of it. appointment, please let us know as soon as possible at The Humphrey Field Analyzer 2 uses a computer-controlled, projected beam of light to 604.530.6838. map the visual field, which is then compared by a computer against a database of normal readings. The Visual Field test results are plotted on paper, extending about 90 degrees If you have any questions or to the temple side, and 60 degrees to the nose side. Dr. Anderson will examine the Visual concerns, please speak with Field results, and from the type and location of the defect (if any) can tell where in Dr. Anderson. the visual system the problem may lie. The field test is also used to monitor possible progression of diseases like glaucoma and can indicate if more intensive therapy (if any) is needed. The test is done by a technician and takes approximately 30 minutes. Drops are not generally used, so your vision should not be affected. Appointment date: Time: Optical Coherence Tomographer (OCT) Test The Optical Coherence Tomographer is a type of scanning laser ophthalmoscope, which uses a low-powered laser and a computer to build up a three-dimensional picture of the optic nerve, macula, and other structures in the back of the eye.
    [Show full text]
  • Objective Assessment of Retinal Ganglion Cell Function in Glaucoma
    Objective Assessment of Retinal Ganglion Cell Function in Glaucoma Submitted by Nabin R. Joshi DISSERTATION In partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy SUNY College of Optometry (September 25th, 2017) 1 Abstract Background Glaucoma refers to a group of diseases causing progressive degeneration of the retinal ganglion cells. It is a clinical diagnosis based on the evidence of structural damage of the optic nerve head with corresponding visual field loss. Structural damage is assessed by visualization of the optic nerve head (ONH) through various imaging and observational techniques, while the behavioral loss of sensitivity is assessed with an automated perimeter. However, given the subjective nature of visual field assessment in patients, visual function examination suffers from high variability as well as patient and operator- related biases. To overcome these drawbacks, past research has focused on the use of objective methods of quantifying retinal function in patients with glaucoma such as electroretinograms, visually evoked potentials, pupillometry etc. Electroretinograms are objective, non-invasive method of assessing retinal function, and careful manipulation of the visual input or stimulus can result in extraction of signals particular to select classes of the retinal cells, and photopic negative response (PhNR) is a component of ERG that reflects primarily the retinal ganglion cell function. On the other hand, pupillary response to light, measured objectively with a pupillometer, also indicates the functional state of the retina and the pupillary pathway. Hence, the study of both ERGs and pupillary response to light provide an objective avenue of research towards understanding the mechanisms of neurodegeneration in glaucoma, possibly affecting the clinical care of the patients in the long run.
    [Show full text]
  • Medicare and Coding Issues
    3/6/2014 What Ophthalmologists Presented by Joy Newby, LPN, CPC, PCS Need to Know About Newby Consulting, Inc. Medicare and Coding 5725 Park Plaza Court Indianapolis, IN 46220 Illinois Society of Eye Physicians and Surgeons Voice: 317.573.3960 Chicago Ophthalmological Society Fax: 866-631-9310 Annual Joint Meeting March 7, 2014 E-mail: [email protected] This presentation was current at the time it was published and is intended to provide useful information in regard to the subject Agenda matter covered. Newby Consulting, Inc. believes the information is as authoritative and accurate as is reasonably possible and that the sources of information used in preparation of the manual are reliable, but no assurance or warranty of completeness or accuracy is intended or given, and all warranties of any type are disclaimed. • ICD-10 - Are we close to being ready? The information contained in this presentation is a general summary that explains certain aspects of the Medicare Program, but is not a legal document. The official Medicare Program provisions are contained in the relevant laws, regulations, and rulings. Any five-digit numeric Physician's Current Procedural Terminology, Fourth Edition (CPT) codes service descriptions, instructions, and/or guidelines are copyright 2013 (or such other date of publication of CPT as defined in the federal copyright laws) American Medical Association. 4 International Classification of Diseases, International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Tenth Revision (ICD-10) Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM)
    [Show full text]
  • From Examination of Monocular Photographs of the Optic Disc
    Br J Ophthalmol: first published as 10.1136/bjo.67.12.822 on 1 December 1983. Downloaded from British Journal ofOphthalmology, 1983, 67, 822-825 Identification of glaucomatous visual field defects from examination of monocular photographs of the optic disc R. A. HITCHINGS AND S. ANDERTON From the Glaucoma Unit, Moorfields Eye Hospital, High Holborn, London WCIV 7AN SUMMARY A study was carried out ofmonocular disc photographs from 33 eyes for which the visual fields on both static profile and kinetic perimetry has been performed. Physical signs looked for at the optic disc included thinning of the neuroretinal rim, angulation of retinal vessels, extension of laminar dots, undercutting of the neuroretinal rim, and absence and pallor of the neuroretinal rim. These signs together proved more accurate than kinetic Goldmann perimetry in identifying the presence ofglaucomatous visual field defect. Of these signs angulation of the retinal vessels was the one most consistently present. The examination of photographs has definite to correlate with visual field defects seen with the advantages over direct ophthalmoscopy. These are a Armaly/Drance technique. However, as similar signs stable image, the ability to superimpose a grid over were present in optic discs without visual field defects the photographs and allow measurements to be made, the question of early visual field defect was raised. In and an image to retain for comparison with future a recent study6 static profile perimetry identified images of the optic disc. By using photographs with
    [Show full text]
  • Visual Field Changes After Vitrectomy with Internal Limiting Membrane Peeling for Epiretinal Membrane Or Macular Hole in Glaucomatous Eyes
    RESEARCH ARTICLE Visual field changes after vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling for epiretinal membrane or macular hole in glaucomatous eyes Shunsuke Tsuchiya, Tomomi Higashide*, Kazuhisa Sugiyama Department of Ophthalmology, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Science, Kanazawa, Japan * [email protected] a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 Abstract a1111111111 a1111111111 Purpose To investigate visual field changes after vitrectomy for macular diseases in glaucomatous eyes. OPEN ACCESS Citation: Tsuchiya S, Higashide T, Sugiyama K Methods (2017) Visual field changes after vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling for epiretinal A retrospective review of 54 eyes from 54 patients with glaucoma, who underwent vitrectomy membrane or macular hole in glaucomatous eyes. for epiretinal membrane (ERM; 42 eyes) or macular hole (MH; 12 eyes). Standard automated PLoS ONE 12(5): e0177526. https://doi.org/ perimetry (Humphrey visual field 24±2 program) was performed and analyzed preoperatively 10.1371/journal.pone.0177526 and twice postoperatively (1st and 2nd sessions; 4.7 ± 2.5, 10.3 ± 3.7 months after surgery, Editor: Demetrios G. Vavvas, Massachusetts Eye & respectively). Postoperative visual field sensitivity at each test point was compared with the Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, UNITED STATES preoperative value. Longitudinal changes in mean visual field sensitivity (MVFS) of the 12 test points within 10Ê eccentricity (center) and the remaining test points (periphery), best-cor- Received: October 29, 2016 rected visual acuity (BCVA), intraocular pressure (IOP), and ganglion cell complex (GCC) Accepted: April 29, 2017 thickness, and the association of factors with changes in central or peripheral MVFS over Published: May 18, 2017 time were analyzed using linear mixed-effects models.
    [Show full text]
  • Visual Field Testing
    Visual Field Testing During a routine eye exam, it is recommended that patients have a visual field test to assess the potential presence of blind spots, which could indicate eye diseases. A blind spot in the field of vision can be linked to a variety of specific eye diseases, depending on the size and shape of the blind spot. Many eye and brain disorders can cause visual field abnormalities. Examples of this include: optic nerve damage caused by glaucoma, optic nerve damage from disease, toxic exposure or damage to the retina (the light-sensitive inner lining of the eye). Additionally, visual field testing can reveal brain abnormalities caused by strokes and tumors. Visual Field Tests are not covered by vision insurances, but are still highly recommended, especially for patients over the age of forty. Yes, I authorize the administration of the Visual Field Test today. The fee for this test is $60.00. I accept financial responsibility for this additional vision test. No, I would prefer not to have the Visual Field Test at this time. Print Name: ____________________________________________________ Signature: _______________________________ Date: _______________ PATIENT REGISTRATION First Name: _____________________________ Last Name: _____________________________ Middle Initial: ____ Preferred / Nickname: ___________________________ Sex: Male Female Marital Status: Married Single Divorced Separated Widowed Birth Date: ______________________ Soc Sec: _____________________ Address: ______________________________________ Address 2:
    [Show full text]
  • OC.UM.CP.0063 Visual Field Testing
    ENVOLVE VISION BENEFITS, INC. INCLUDING ALL ASSOCIATED SUBSIDIARIES CLINICAL POLICY AND PROCEDURE DEPARTMENT: Utilization DOCUMENT NAME: Visual Field Testing Management (92081/92082/92083) PAGE: 1 of 63 REFERENCE NUMBER: OC.UM.CP.0063 EFFECTIVE DATE: 01/01/2018 REPLACES DOCUMENT: 277-UM-R8, 3036­ MM-R6 RETIRED: REVIEWED: 10/23/2018 SPECIALIST REVIEW: Yes REVISED: 10/23/2018 PRODUCT TYPE: All COMMITTEE APPROVAL: 12/05/2018 IMPORTANT REMINDER This Clinical Policy has been developed by appropriately experienced and licensed health care professionals based on a thorough review and consideration of generally accepted standards of medical practice, peer-reviewed medical literature, government agency/program approval status, and other indicia of medical necessity. The purpose of this Clinical Policy is to provide a guide to medical necessity. Benefit determinations should be based in all cases on the applicable contract provisions governing plan benefits (“Benefit Plan Contract”) and applicable state and federal requirements including Local Coverage Determinations (LCDs), as well as applicable plan-level administrative policies and procedures. To the extent there are any conflicts between this Clinical Policy and the Benefit Plan Contract provisions, the Benefit Plan Contract provisions will control. Clinical policies are intended to be reflective of current scientific research and clinical thinking. This Clinical Policy is not intended to dictate to providers how to practice medicine, nor does it constitute a contract or guarantee regarding results. Providers are expected to exercise professional medical judgment in providing the most appropriate care, and are solely responsible for the medical advice and treatment of members. SUBJECT: Medical necessity determination for performance of visual field testing.
    [Show full text]