THE EFFECT OF TOPICAL BETA-ADRENOCEPTOR BLOCKING AGENTS ON PULSATILE OCULAR BLOOD FLOW C. D. MORSMAN, M. E. BOSEM, M. LUSKY and R. N. WEINREB San Diego, California SUMMARY factors (e.g. hypertension, diabetes, peripheral Thirty-three ocular hypertensive patients (21 with vascular disease and vasospasm) to the vascular primary open angle glaucoma and 12 glaucoma system suggest that blood flow in the optic nerve suspects) were randomly assigned to receive either head and retina may be altered in glaucoma.4 Of the timolol, levobunolol or betaxolol in one eye. Pulsatile various vascular beds within the posterior segment, ocular blood flow (POBF) was measured before the choroidal circulation is of particular interest since treatment (baseline) and 2 hours after drop adminis­ it provides the major contribution to the blood flow tration. After 1 week of regular twice-daily dosage, of the optic nerve at the level of the lamina cribrosa.5 POBF was measured again both immediately before Beta-2 adrenergic receptors have been demon­ and 2 hours after drop instillation. All measurements strated in human optic nerve,6 as well as in choroidal were made by an investigator masked to treatment. and retinal blood vessels.7 Blockade of these POBF increased by 11% (p = 0.09) at week 0 after receptors can cause vasoconstrictionS which could levobunolol administration, and by 22% (p = 0.20) at adversely affect visual function if adequate concen­ week 1 before drop administration compared with trations of the drug diffused into the posterior baseline. It dropped by 23% and 25% (p = 0.04 and segment of the eye or were absorbed systemically. 0.06, respectively) before and after betaxolol adminis­ Although it is not possible to measure perfusion of tration at week 1. Although POBF was reduced in the the optic nerve directly or non-invasively, it has been timolol group, this change was not significant. These suggested that pulsatile ocular blood flow (POBF) results can not be explained uniformly by changes in gives an indication by estimating choroidal flOW.9-11 intraocular pressure or blood pressure. The relevance In this study, changes in POBF following instilla­ of these measurements to visual function in glaucoma is tion of two non-selective agents (timolol and not known. levobunolol) and a beta-1 selective agent (betax- It is generally accepted that reducing intraocular 0101) were compared. pressure (lOP) can delay or prevent visual field loss in many patients with glaucoma.1 The most widely SUBJECTS AND METHODS used ocular hypotensive drugs are topical beta­ Thirty-three ocular hypertensive patients (21 with adrenoceptor blockers, which lower lOP by redu­ primary open angle glaucoma and 12 glaucoma cing aqueous flow. These either act predominantly suspects) were enrolled after their informed consent on beta-1 receptors, or are non-selective and act on had been obtained. The mean age of the subjects was both beta-1 and beta-2 receptors. The non-selective 64 years; there were 16 men and 17 women. All drugs are more effective ocular hypotensive agents patients had at least two occasions. Glaucoma than are beta-1 selective drugs? patients had characteristic visual field defects on It is becoming increasingly apparent that risk the Octopus perimeter using programme G 1 or 32, factors besides high lOP are associated with and glaucomatous disc cupping. Suspects had normal glaucoma? The relationships of some of these risk optic discs and visual fields.Patients were excluded if they had more than 5 dioptres of myopia, were From: Glaucoma Center and Research Laboratories, Univer­ sity of California, San Diego, California, USA. diabetic or were using systemic vasoactive medica­ Correspondence to: C. D. Morsman, FRCOphth, The North tions. All glaucoma treatment was discontinued for 2 Hampshire Hospital, Department of Ophthalmology, Basing­ weeks prior to the baseline measurement. stoke RG24 9NA, UK. Eye (1995) 9,344-347 © 1995 Royal College of Ophthalmologists POBF WITH DIFFERENT BETA BLOCKERS 345 At the firstvisit after the washout period (week 0), Table I. Intraocular pressure (mmHg) in the treated eye at each applanation tonometry was performed and the visit before and after instillation of medicine patient lay supine for 2 minutes. Brachial blood Week 0 Week 1 pressure and pulse rate were determined. The eyes Beforea After Before After were anaesthetised with topical proparacaine hydro­ Timolol 25 18 (0.01) 19 (0.01) 19 (0.03) chloride 0.5% (Ophthetic, Allergan) and POBF Levobunolol 27 18 (0.02) 17 (0.01) 17 (0.01) measured with the Langham system (Ocular Blood Betaxolol 25 18 (0.01) 20 (0.02) 17 (0.01) Flow Laboratories, Annapolis, MD) accordin§ to the Figures in parentheses are p values for the change from baseline. technique described by Langham et al.9,1 Four aThe baseline value. ocular pulse measurements of 5 seconds each were analysed for each eye. To reduce inter-observer bias, all measurements were recorded by the same Table II. Mean blood pressure (mmHg) at each visit before and operator, who was masked to both the treatment after instillation of medication and the eye treated. The instrument was calibrated at Week 0 Week 1 the start of each session and verified against a silastic membrane at pressures of 15 and 40 mmHg before Beforea After Before After each patient was tested. Timolol 97 98 95 96 The patients were randomly allocated to receive Levobunolol 97 98 98 96 Betaxolol 98 96 100 97 either 0.5% timolol maleate (Timoptic, MSD), 0.5% levobunolol hydrochloride (Betagan, Allergan) or aBaseline value. 0.5% betaxolol hydrochloride (Betoptic, Alcon Laboratories). One drop of the drug was instilled Table III. Pulsatile ocular blood flow (ILl/min) in the treated eye by one of the investigators into the lower fornix of at each visit before and after instillation of medication one eye selected at random and the nasolacrimal Week 0 Week 1 duct occluded for 2 minutes. All measurements were repeated 2 hours later. The patient was then asked to Beforea After Before After use the same drop in the same eye twice daily with Timolol 498 467 (0.84) 453 (0.99) 408 (0.35) nasolacrimal duct occlusion for 1 week. At that time Levobunolol 492 546 (0.09) 601 (0.20) 518 (0.56) Betaxolol 483 520 (0.42) 375 (0.04) 364 (0.06) (week 1) measurements were repeated again, before Figures in brackets are p values for the change from baseline. and 2 hours after the first drop administration of the aThe baseline value. day. To minimise the effect of diurnal variation, all measurements were taken between 0800 and 1000 hours. the study period (Table I). This ocular hypotensive To assess the reproducibility of POBF measure­ effect was slightly greater in the levobunolol group ments, we had previously calculated the coefficientof (37%) compared with the betaxolol (28%) or timolol variation (standard deviation/mean) of three (24%) groups, though the differences were not repeated measurements on another 15 glaucoma statistically significant. subjectsP The average coefficient of variation was 7.5% and this did not correlate with the magnitude of Cardiovascular Parameters POBF. Mean blood pressure [diastolic + (systolic - Change in lOP, mean blood pressure and POBF diastolic/3)] did not change by more than 2 mmHg were each compared with baseline (week 0 before in any group (Table II), and there was no significant drop instillation) using a paired t-test for normally change in heart rate. distributed data or otherwise its non-parametric equivalent, the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Compar­ Pulsatile Ocular Blood Flow isons were done between treatment groups using the Throughout the study period, there was a tendency two-sample t-test or the Wilcoxon rank sum test, as for POBF to be increased in response to levobunolol appropriate. A p value of <0.05 was considered and reduced in response to betaxolol. Significance significant. (p<0.05) or trends towards significance(0.05<p<0.1O) were seen for levobunolol at week 0 (11% increase; RESULTS p = 0.09) and for betaxolol at week 1 before and after drop instillation (23% and 25% reduction; p = 0.04 There were no significant differences among patients and 0.06, respectively) compared with baseline allocated to each group in terms of age, gender or (Table III). The difference in POBF between these diagnosis. two drugs was highly significant (p<0.01) at week 1 both before and after drop instillation. There was no Intraocular Pressure statistically significanteffect on POBF in response to All three drugs reduced lOP in the treated eye over timolol. 346 C. D. MORSMAN ET AL. Correlations to calculate ocular volume is valid for all eyes. The changes in POBF and lOP were inversely However, this relationship was developed from data correlated in the treated eye at week 1 before on only three enucleated and six living eyes.9,13 instillation (r = -0.39). There were no other Differences in scleral rigidity, eye volume, and axial significant correlations between observed changes length could each affect the derived relationship and, in POBF and other parameters. hence, the calculation of ocular blood volume and flow. For example, the accuracy of the technique has DISCUSSION been questioned in individuals with high myopia, In this study, levobunolol increased POBF by 11% who are known to have low scleral rigidity and a high after a single dose (p = 0.09). This confirms our axial length.16 previous results in which levobunolol was found to In addition to our previous report,12 several other increase POBF by 13% in 14 primary open angle studies have looked at changes in pulsatile flow over glaucoma patients.12 In addition, we observed a a few hours after instillation of non-selective topical decrease in POBF in response to betaxolol following beta adrenoceptor blocking drugs (Table IV).