IOVS British Journal of Pharmacology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

(Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2006;47:641-644.)
© 2006 by The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.
DOI:  10.1167/iovs.04-0268
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (7)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Susanna, R.
Right arrow Articles by Morita, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Susanna, R., Jr
Right arrow Articles by Morita, C.

Correlation of Asymmetric Glaucomatous Visual Field Damage and Water-Drinking Test Response

Remo Susanna, Jr, Marcelo Hatanaka, Roberto Murad Vessani, Alexandre Pinheiro, and Celso Morita

From the Glaucoma Service, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
PURPOSE. To determine whether there is a correlation between asymmetric glaucomatous visual field (VF) damage and water-drinking test (WDT) response.

METHODS. A retrospective analysis was conducted of VF and WDT data from 101 patients with glaucoma in clinical therapy, who were receiving treatment with the same topical medication in both eyes, and asymmetric VF defect. Eyes were classified according to mean deviation (MD) into "better" and contralateral "worse" eyes. Maximum mean difference in basal IOP was 2 mm Hg between both eyes. The peak IOP and fluctuation obtained with the WDT were compared between both groups. For the statistical analysis, the Tukey post hoc multiple comparison test and paired t-test were used.

RESULTS. Better and contralateral worse eyes presented mean MDs of –4.6 ± 5.3 and –9.0 ± 7.4 dB, respectively (P < 0.001). Mean basal IOPs were 13.9 ± 3.3 and 13.9 ± 3.1 mm Hg, respectively (P = 0.67). Mean maximum IOPs after water ingestion were 16.5 ± 3.8 mm Hg in the group with less severe VF defect and 17.2 ± 4.1 mm Hg in the contralateral group with worse visual fields (P < 0.001). Mean fluctuation (maximum IOP – minimum IOP after water ingestion) was 3.6 ± 1.8 and 4.4 ± 2.2 mm Hg (P < 0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSION. Eyes with worse MDs presented higher IOP peaks and fluctuation after water ingestion. This study demonstrates a lower capacity of eyes with worse glaucomatous lesion to respond to a stimulus that leads to a transitory elevation of IOP.

Glaucoma treatment is based mainly on intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction, to prevent optic disc damage. However, it has been reported that a significant group of patients still experience progression of glaucoma despite IOP measurements in the ophthalmologist’s office within normal limits.1 2 3 4 However, it has been suggested that this finding may be explained by the occurrence of pressure peaks not detected by single measurements in the clinic. Drance5 demonstrated that almost one third of patients with single IOP measurements during office hours may present pressure peaks only detected during a 24-hour pressure curve. Also, IOP fluctuation has been identified as a risk factor for the progression of glaucoma.6 7 8 Thus, the IOP profile would be better assessed by a 24-hour daily tension curve.

Despite its importance, monitoring the IOP through the 24 hours of the day is not always feasible in the clinical practice. As an alternative, a modified diurnal tension curve consisting of four to five measurements during working hours is routinely used. However, this test may miss up to 70% of IOP peaks, because most of the highest IOP levels occur at 6 AM with the individual in the supine position.9 10 A provocative water-drinking test (WDT) may be a practical way to estimate diurnal IOP peaks (Susanna R, et al. IOVS 2001;42:ARVO Abstract 2295).11 12 13 14 Previous reports have demonstrated that IOP elevation during a WDT is a risk factor for the development of glaucomatous visual field progression in normal-tension glaucoma15 and in open-angle glaucoma.16

This study was conducted to compare the WDT response between eyes with asymmetric visual field (VF) damage in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma.


   Materials and Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Materials and Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
This was a retrospective study that included visual fields and WDT data from 101 primary open-angle glaucoma patients from the private office of one of the authors, where the WDT is part of the routine examination of glaucomatous patients.

All the patients were in clinical therapy with the same medication in both eyes with a maximum difference of 2 mm Hg between the right and left eyes. Patients with IOP levels equal to or less than 18 mm Hg were included in the study.

Both eyes of each included patient had to show equal visual acuity better than 20/40. Visual fields were performed with the Humphrey automated perimeter, with the Full-Threshold strategy and 24-2 program (model 750; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, CA) Asymmetric glaucomatous VF damage was classified by means of the mean deviation (MD) index (range, 0.5–10 dB). Both eyes of each patient were included in the study. The eyes were divided according to the MD index into two groups: eyes with better MDs and another group of contralateral eyes with worse MDs. All eyes in this study had glaucomatous visual field defects characterized by a Glaucoma Hemifield Test (GHT) result outside normal limits.

Exclusion criteria were history of filtering surgery, laser trabeculoplasty, and any other ocular disease that could influence visual field examination results.

Primary open-angle glaucoma was defined as having a history of IOP higher than 21 mm Hg in at least one eye before the treatment; presence of glaucomatous visual field damage and/or glaucomatous optic nerve lesion; open angles and normal findings on gonioscopy; no history of any other ocular disease that could cause an increase in IOP.

No fluid ingestion was allowed 3 hours before the WDT. A basal IOP measurement was taken with the Goldmann applanation tonometer. The patient was asked to drink 1 L of tap water in less than 5 minutes. IOP measurement was repeated four times with 15-minute intervals.

IOP peak and fluctuation were compared between both eyes. IOP fluctuation was defined as the difference between the IOP peak and IOP before water ingestion. Data were analyzed with the Tukey post hoc multiple-comparison test and the paired t-test.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Materials and Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
One hundred one patients with primary open-angle glaucoma were included in this study. Mean ± SD MD was –4.6 ± 5.3 in eyes with better MDs and –9.0 ± 7.4 in the contralateral worse-eye group (P < 0.001).

WDT results are displayed in Figure 1 . For statistical analysis of each curve, multiple comparisons between measurements at each time interval were made with the Tukey test (Tables 1 2) .


Figure 1
View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 1. Water drinking test results.

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 1. Water-Drinking Test: Eyes with Higher MDs

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 2. Water Drinking Test: Eyes with Lower MDs

 
The paired t-test was used to compare IOPs. No significant difference was observed in mean basal IOP between the two groups (13.9 ± 3.3 mm Hg in eyes with worse MDs versus 13.9 ± 3.1 mm Hg in eyes with better MDs; P = 0.67).

A significant difference was observed in mean IOP between the two groups after 15 and 30 minutes of water ingestion (P = 0.03; Table 3 ). No significant difference was observed between groups at 45 and 60 minutes.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 3. IOP Comparison at Each Time Point

 
Mean maximum IOP after water ingestion was 16.5 ± 3.8 mm Hg in the better eye group and 17.2 ± 4.1 mm Hg in eyes with worse MDs (P < 0.001). IOP fluctuation after water ingestion (maximum IOP minus basal IOP) was 3.6 ± 1.8 and 4.4 ± 2.2 mm Hg, respectively (P < 0.01; Table 4 ).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 4. Maximum IOP and IOP Fluctuation after Water Ingestion

 

   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
Glaucoma treatment is based mainly on IOP reduction. However, even in situations in which pressure levels are considered within adequate limits under clinical therapy, some patients continue to have progressive glaucoma.1 2 3 4 One possible explanation was described by Drance,5 who showed that almost one third of patients with single IOP measurements taken during doctor’s office hours had pressure peaks detected only during a 24-hour pressure curve.

According to Zeimer et al.,6 29% of patients with progressive loss of visual field had IOP peaks. Cartwright and Anderson,17 in one retrospective analysis of 14 cases of normal-tension glaucoma with asymmetric damage, showed that the eyes with worse glaucomatous damage presented higher levels of IOP. These data emphasize the need of IOP variability assessment in patients with glaucoma.

The WDT has been proposed initially by Schmidt18 as a tool for the diagnosis of glaucoma. However, a poor correlation with the disease and its low prognostic value have been demonstrated.19 20 Later, different studies demonstrated the correlation between IOP peaks detected during this provocative test and the pressure curve.15 16 17 18 More recently, Malerbi et al.21 demonstrated the usefulness of this test in the assessment of patients with POAG whose IOPs were equal to or less than the established target IOP during single measurements at the ophthalmologist’s office.

In addition, the importance of this test has been shown by Armaly et al.16 in a prospective study of 5000 patients with open-angle glaucoma. They studied 26 potential risk factors from which only five were significantly related to the development of glaucomatous visual field lesion: outflow facility, age, IOP, cup-to-disc ratio, and change in IOP after water ingestion. Yoshikawa et al.15 evaluated of clinical tests that could predict the progression of visual field loss in normal tension glaucoma. The WDT was considered the main predictive test for glaucomatous progression in the studied group. Brubaker,22 in a computer simulation, proposed that the WDT could be used as an indirect tool to measure outflow facility.

The WDT has also been used to compare the effect of different drugs on IOP and its fluctuation in eyes with elevated IOP.23 24 25 26 The variability of IOP in patients with outflow controlled by filtering surgery was also evaluated with this test.27 28

The exact mechanism of the WDT over the IOP is uncertain. One hypothesis is that the change in blood osmolarity could be responsible for this elevation, due to the vitreous humor hydration. The change in the osmolarity could also lead to stimulus of the central nervous and endocrine systems.29 In clinical practice, the WDT may be considered an indirect tool for evaluating the outflow system of the eye.

In our study, eyes with worse MDs had higher pressure peaks. We observed a difference of almost 1 mm Hg in IOP fluctuation during the WDT between the two groups. The data demonstrate that eyes with worse glaucomatous lesion present higher IOP fluctuations than the contralateral eyes, even when equally treated with topical medication. This relationship between asymmetric glaucomatous lesions and IOP elevation suggests that this fact can be important in the mechanism of glaucomatous damage. It is worth noting that in the management of glaucoma, each millimeter of mercury of IOP reduction accounts for the reduction of progression risk, as demonstrated by the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial.30

It is possible that IOP variability after water ingestion could be even higher in patients without treatment, because some of the medications used by the studied patients can reduce IOP peaks by improving aqueous humor drainage.

In conclusion, this study demonstrates that eyes with worse glaucomatous damage have a greater variability in response to the WDT. This test could be useful in evaluating the efficacy of a treatment when its main objective is to reduce IOP as well as to lower its fluctuation. However, other studies are necessary to correlate the results of the WDT with glaucomatous progression, to confirm this hypothesis.


   Footnotes
 
Submitted for publication March 9, 2004; revised July 29, 2005; accepted December 20, 2005.

Disclosure: R. Susanna, None; M. Hatanaka, None; R.M. Vessani, None; A. Pinheiro, None; C. Morita, None

The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by page charge payment. This article must therefore be marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Corresponding author: Marcelo Hatanaka, Rua Capote Valente, 171 Ap. 122, Jardim América, São Paulo, SP, CEP 05409-000; mh2003{at}uol.com.br.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Kidd MN, O’Conner M. Progression of field loss after trabeculectomy: a five-year follow-up. Br J Ophthalmol. 1985;69:827–831.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Schulzer M, Mikelberg FS, Drance SM. Some observations on the relation between intraocular pressure and the progression of glaucomatous visual field loss. Br J Ophthalmol. 1987;71:486–488.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. O’Brien C, Schwartz B, Takamoto T, Wu DC. Intraocular pressure and the rate of visual field loss in chronic open-angle glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1991;111:491–500.[Web of Science][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  4. Chauhan BC, Drance SM. The relationship between intraocular pressure and visual field progression in glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1992;230:521–526.[Web of Science][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  5. Drance SM. Diurnal variation of intraocular pressure in treated glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1963;70:302–311.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Zeimer RC, Wilensky JT, Gieser DR, et al. Association between intraocular pressure peaks and progression of visual field loss. Ophthalmology. 1991;98:64–69.[Web of Science][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  7. Katavisto M. The diurnal variations of ocular tension in glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol. 1964;78(suppl)1–131.
  8. Asrani S, Zeimer R, Wilensky J, et al. Large diurnal fluctuations in intraocular pressure are an independent risk factor in patients with glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2000;9:134–142.[Web of Science][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  9. Zeimer R. Circadian variations in intraocular pressure. Ritch R Shields MB Krupin T eds. The Glaucomas. 1996; CV Mosby St. Louis.
  10. Liu JH, Zhang X, Kripke DF, Weinreb RN. Twenty-four-hour intraocular pressure pattern associated with early glaucomatous changes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:1586–1590.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Miller D. The relationship between diurnal tension variation and the water-drinking test. Am J Ophthalmol. 1964;58:243–247.[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  12. Frankelson EN. The role of the water test in evaluation of glaucoma control. Can J Ophthalmol. 1974;9:408–410.[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  13. Helal J. Contribuição ao estudo da pressão intra-ocular: picos de pressão intra-ocular na curva diária de pressão e na prova de sobrecarga hídrica. Rev Bras Oftal. 1988;47:75–80.
  14. Medeiros FA, Leite CA, Notrispe CR, Susanna R, Jr. Correlação entre os picos pressóricos da curva tensional diária e do teste de sobrecarga hídrica: estudo em pacientes com glaucoma primário de angulo aberto em uso de tilmolol e dorzolamida. Rev Bras Oftal. 2001;60:418–423.
  15. Yoshikawa K, Inohue T, Inohue Y. Normal tension glaucoma: the value of predictive tests. Acta Ophthalmol. 1993;71:463–470.[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  16. Armaly MF, Krueger DE, Maunder L, et al. Biostatistical analysis of the Collaborative Glaucoma Study. I. Summary report of the risk factors for glaucomatous visual-field defects. Arch Ophthalmol. 1980;98:2163–2171.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Cartwright MJ, Anderson DR. Correlation of asymmetric damage with asymmetric intraocular pressure in normal-tension glaucoma (low-tension glaucoma). Arch Ophthalmol. 1988;106:898–900.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Schmidt K. Untersuchungen über Kapillarendothelstörungen bei Glaukoma simplex. Arch Augenheilkd. 1928;98:569–581.
  19. Roth JA. Inadequate diagnostic value of the water-drinking test. Br J Ophthalmol. 1974;58:55–61.[Free Full Text]
  20. Rasmussen KE, Jorgensen HA. Diagnostic value of the water drinking test in early detection of simple glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol. 1967;54:160–164.
  21. Malerbi FK, Hatanaka M, Vessani RM, Susanna R, Jr. Intraocular pressure variability in patients who reached target intraocular pressure. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89:540–542.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Brubaker RF. Importance of outflow facility. Int Glaucoma Rev. 2001;3:5.
  23. Vetrugno M, Sisto D, Trabucco T, Balducci F, Delle Noci N, Sborgia C. Water-drinking test in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma while treated with different topical medications. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2005;21:250–257.[CrossRef][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  24. Susanna R, Jr, Medeiros FA, Vessani RM, Giampani J, Jr, Borges AS, Jordao ML. Intraocular pressure fluctuations in response to the water-drinking provocative test in patients using latanoprost versus unoprostone. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2004;20:401–410.[CrossRef][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  25. Christiansen GA, Nau CB, McLaren JW, Johnson DH. Mechanism of ocular hypotensive action of bimatoprost (Lumigan) in patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2004;111:1658–1662.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  26. Susanna R, Jr, Sheu WP. Latin American Glaucoma Society: comparison of latanoprost with fixed-combination dorzolamide and timolol in adult patients with elevated intraocular pressure: an eight-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, multicenter study in Latin America. Clin Ther. 2004;26:755–768.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  27. Medeiros FA, Pinheiro A, Moura FC, Leal BC, Susanna R, Jr. Intraocular pressure fluctuations in medical versus surgically treated glaucomatous patients. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2002;18:489–498.[CrossRef][Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  28. Chen CH, Lu DW, Chang CJ, Chiang CH, Chou PI. The application of water drinking test on the evaluation of trabeculectomy patency. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2000;16:37–42.[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  29. De Roeth A. Effect of changes in osmotic pressure of blood on aqueous humor dynamics. Arch Ophthalmol. 1954;52:571–582.[Medline][Order article via Infotrieve]
  30. Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Bengtsson B, Hussein M. Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial Group: reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:1268–1279.[Abstract/Free Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Am. Coll. Nutr.Home page
F. Manz
Hydration and Disease
J. Am. Coll. Nutr., October 1, 2007; 26(suppl_5): 535S - 541S.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (7)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Susanna, R.
Right arrow Articles by Morita, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Susanna, R., Jr
Right arrow Articles by Morita, C.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS