Interpretation on Humphrey's visual field tests. Is it glaucoma?

This article describes a step-wise approach for the understanding and interpretation of Humphrey's SITA visual field tests. The goal of this article is to help the reader to differentiate between non-specific abnormalities of the visual field and changes of the visual field that are suggestive of glaucoma.

Attitudes of consultant ophthalmologists in the UK to initial management of glaucoma patients presenting with severe visual field loss: a national survey

BACKGROUND: Recent National Institute of Clinical Excellence guidance suggests primary surgery should be offered to patients presenting with glaucoma with severe visual field loss. We undertook a survey of UK consultant ophthalmologists to determine if this represents current practice and explore attitudes towards managing patients with advanced glaucoma at presentation.

DESIGN: Questionnaire evaluation study.

PARTICIPANTS: All consultant ophthalmologists currently practicing in the UK.

METHODS: A single-page questionnaire was posted to all consultants (n = 910) currently practicing in the UK along with a pre-paid return envelope. A second questionnaire was sent to non-responders (n = 459).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Questionnaire responses.

RESULTS: 626 responses were received representing 68.8% of the population surveyed. 152 (24%) volunteered a specialist interest in glaucoma. Consensus opinion for both glaucoma specialists (64.9%) and non-glaucoma specialists (62.4%) was to start with primary medical therapy, most commonly citing surgical risk as the primary reason (23% and 22%, respectively) for this approach. Most felt the highest intraocular pressure measurement during follow up (measured in clinic) was the most important variable for prevention of further visual loss (60% of glaucoma specialists and 55% of non-glaucoma specialists). Eighty-three per cent of all responders suggested they would change their practice if evidence supporting primary surgery as a safe and more effective approach existed.

CONCLUSIONS: Recent National Institute of Clinical Excellence guidance does not reflect the current management approach of UK ophthalmologists. The primary concern was related to potential complications of surgery although most practitioners would be willing to change their practice if evidence existed supporting primary surgery in patients presenting with advanced glaucoma.

Perimetric progression in open angle glaucoma and the Visual Field Index (VFI)

PURPOSE: To evaluate the changes in the Visual Field Index (VFI) in eyes with perimetric glaucomatous progression, and to compare these against stable glaucoma patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients with open angle glaucoma with a minimum of 6 reliable visual fields and 2 years of follow-up were identified. Perimetric progression was assessed by 4 masked glaucoma experts from different units, and classified into 3 categories: "definite progression," "suspected progression," or "no progression." This was compared with the Glaucoma Progression Analysis (GPA) II and VFI linear regression analysis, where progression was defined as a negative slope with significance of <5%.

RESULTS: Three hundred ninety-seven visual fields from 51 eyes of 39 patients were assessed. The mean number of visual fields was 7.8 (SD 1.1) per eye, and the mean follow-up duration was 63.7 (SD 13.4) months. The mean VFI linear regression slope showed an overall statistically significant difference (P<0.001, analysis of variance) for each category of progression. Using expert consensus opinion as the reference standard, both VFI analysis and GPA II had high specificity (0.93 and 0.90, respectively), but relatively low sensitivity (0.45 and 0.41, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS: The mean VFI regression slope in our cohort of eyes without perimetric progression showed a statistically significant difference compared with those with suspected and definite progression. VFI analysis and GPA II both had similarly high specificity but low sensitivity when compared with expert consensus opinion.

Methodological variations in estimating apparent progressive visual field loss in clinical trials of glaucoma treatment.

OBJECTIVES:

To compare methods to estimate the incidence of visual field progression used by 3 large randomized trials of glaucoma treatment by applying these methods to a common data set of annually obtained visual field measurements of patients with glaucoma followed up for an average of 6 years.

METHODS:

The methods used by the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS), the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study (CIGTS), and the Early Manifest Glaucoma Treatment study (EMGT) were applied to 67 eyes of 56 patients with glaucoma enrolled in a 10-year natural history study of glaucoma using Program 30-2 of the Humphrey Field Analyzer (Humphrey Instruments, San Leandro, Calif). The incidence of apparent visual field progression was estimated for each method. Extent of agreement between the methods was calculated, and time to apparent progression was compared.

RESULTS:

The proportion of patients progressing was 11%, 22%, and 23% with AGIS, CIGTS, and EMGT methods, respectively. Clinical assessment identified 23% of patients who progressed, but only half of these were also identified by CIGTS or EMGT methods. The CIGTS and the EMGT had comparable incidence rates, but only half of those identified by 1 method were also identified by the other.

CONCLUSIONS:

The EMGT and CIGTS methods produced rates of apparent progression that were twice those of the AGIS method. Although EMGT, CIGTS, and clinical assessment rates were comparable, they did not identify the same patients as having had field progression.

Strength of visual percept generated by famous faces perceived without awareness: effects of affective valence, response latency, and visual field

Participants who were unable to detect familiarity from masked 17 ms faces ([Stone and Valentine, 2004] and [Stone and Valentine, in press-b]) did report a vague, partial visual percept. Two experiments investigated the relative strength of the visual percept generated by famous and unfamiliar faces, using masked 17 ms exposure. Each trial presented simultaneously a famous and an unfamiliar face, one face in LVF and the other in RVF. In one task, participants responded according to which of the faces generated the stronger visual percept, and in the other task, they attempted an explicit familiarity decision. The relative strength of the visual percept of the famous face compared to the unfamiliar face was moderated by response latency and participants’ attitude towards the famous person. There was also an interaction of visual field with response latency, suggesting that the right hemisphere can generate a visual percept differentiating famous from unfamiliar faces more rapidly than the left hemisphere. Participants were at chance in the explicit familiarity decision, confirming the absence of awareness of facial familiarity.

Glaucomatous visual field progression with frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in a longitudinal prospective study

PURPOSE. To compare frequency-doubling technology (FDT) perimetry with standard automated perimetry (SAP) for detecting glaucomatous visual field progression in a longitudinal prospective study.

METHODS. One eye of patients with open-angle glaucoma was tested every 6 months with both FDT and SAP. A minimum of 6 examinations with each perimetric technique was required for inclusion. Visual field progression was determined by two methods: glaucoma change probability (GCP) analysis and linear regression analysis (LRA). For GCP, several criteria for progression were used. The number of locations required to classify progression with FDT compared with SAP, respectively, was 1:2 (least conservative), 1:3, 2:3, 2:4, 2:6, 2:7, 3:6, 3:7, and 3:10 (most conservative). The number of consecutive examinations required to confirm progression was 2-of-3, 2-of-2, and 3-of-3. For LRA, the progression criterion was any significant decline in mean threshold sensitivity over time in each of the following three visual field subdivisions: (1) all test locations, (2) locations in the central 10° and the superior and inferior hemifields, and (3) locations in each quadrant. Using these criteria, the proportion of patients classified as showing progression with each perimetric technique was calculated and, in the case of progression with both, the differences in time to progression were determined.

RESULTS. Sixty-five patients were followed for a median of 3.5 years (median number of examinations, 9). For the least conservative GCP criterion, 32 (49%) patients were found to have progressing visual fields with FDT and 32 (49%) patients with SAP. Only 16 (25%) patients showed progression with both methods, and in most of those patients, FDT identified progression before SAP (median, 12 months earlier). The majority of GCP progression criteria (15/27), classified more patients as showing progression with FDT than with SAP. Contrary to this, more patients showed progression with SAP than FDT, when analysed with LRA; e.g., using quadrant LRA 20 (31%) patients showed progression with FDT, 23 (35%) with SAP, and only 10 (15%) with both.

CONCLUSIONS. FDT perimetry detected glaucomatous visual field progression. However, the proportion of patients who showed progression with both FDT and SAP was small, possibly indicating that the two techniques identify different subgroups of patients. Using GCP, more patients showed progression with FDT than with SAP, yet the opposite occurred using LRA. As there is no independent qualifier of progression, FDT and SAP progression rates vary depending on the method of analysis and the criterion used.

Visual sensitivity loss in the central 30° of visual field is associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy

Aims/hypothesis
Impaired central vision has been shown to predict diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN). Several studies have demonstrated diffuse retinal neurodegenerative changes in diabetic patients prior to retinopathy development, raising the prospect that non-central vision may also be compromised by primary neural damage. We hypothesise that type 2 diabetic patients with DPN exhibit visual sensitivity loss in a distinctive pattern across the visual field, compared with a control group of type 2 diabetic patients without DPN.

Methods
Increment light sensitivity was measured by standard perimetry in the central 30° of visual field for two age-matched groups of type 2 diabetic patients, with and without neuropathy (n = 40/30). Neuropathy status was assigned using the neuropathy disability score. Mean visual sensitivity values were calculated globally, for each quadrant and for three eccentricities (0–10°, 11–20° and 21–30°). Data were analysed using a generalised additive mixed model (GAMM).

Results
Global and quadrant between-group visual sensitivity mean differences were marginally but consistently lower (by about 1 dB) in the neuropathy cohort compared with controls. Between-group mean differences increased from 0.36 to 1.81 dB with increasing eccentricity. GAMM analysis, after adjustment for age, showed these differences to be significant beyond 15° eccentricity and monotonically increasing. Retinopathy levels and disease duration were not significant factors within the model (p = 0.90).

Conclusions/interpretation
Visual sensitivity reduces disproportionately with increasing eccentricity in type 2 diabetic patients with peripheral neuropathy. This sensitivity reduction within the central 30° of visual field may be indicative of more consequential loss in the far periphery.

Visual impairment in Australia: distance visual acuity, near vision, and visual field findings of the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project

PURPOSE: To describe the age-specific and gender-specific rates of blindness and visual impairment in urban adults aged 40 years and older. METHODS: A population-based sample of residents was recruited. Presenting and best-corrected distance visual acuities were assessed. Functional near vision was measured at each participant's preferred distance. Visual field examination was performed with a Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA); those unable to perform the field analyzer test attempted a Bjerrum screen or confrontation field. RESULTS: The study population comprised 3,271 residents (83% of eligible) from ages 40 to 98 years; 54% were women. Overall, 56% of the study population wore distance correction; this was significantly lower in men but higher in the older age groups. Age-adjusted rates of blindness were 0.066% in men and 0.170% in women. Vision with current correction improved after refraction by gender and age. Direct age-standardized rates of functional near vision did not vary significantly by gender. Forty-six people had significant visual field loss in their better eye. The proportion of participants with constriction of the visual field to within 20 degrees of fixation was similar for men and women when controlled for age (odds ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.44 to 1.49) but increased significantly with age controlled for gender. Visual field abnormalities were detected in 548 right eyes (17%) and 533 left eyes (16%). CONCLUSIONS: Although overall rates of blindness because of visual acuity loss were relatively low, nearly three times more people had visual impairment because of visual field loss than visual acuity loss. These results highlight the need to target blindness prevention programs to the aging population, with a special emphasis on women.

Visual field losses in workers exposed to mercury vapor

Visual field losses associated with mercury (Hg) exposure have only been assessed in patients exposed to methylmercury. Here we evaluate the automated visual field in 35 ex-workers (30 males; 44.20+/-5.92 years) occupationaly exposed to mercury vapor and 34 controls (21 males; 43.29+/-8.33 years). Visual fields were analyzed with the Humphrey Field Analyzer II (model 750i) using two tests: the standard automated perimetry (SAP, white-on-white) and the short wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP, blue-on-yellow) at 76 locations within a 27 degrees central visual field. Results were analyzed as the mean of the sensitivities measured at the fovea, and at five successive concentric rings, of increasing eccentricity, within the central field. Compared to controls, visual field sensitivities of the experimental group measured using SAP were lower for the fovea as well as for all five eccentricity rings (p<0.05). Sensitivities were significantly lower in the SWAP test (p<0.05) for four of the five extra-foveal eccentricity rings; they were not significant for the fovea (p = 0.584) or for the 15 degrees eccentricity ring (p = 0.965). These results suggest a widespread reduction of sensitivity in both visual field tests. Previous reports in the literature describe moderate to severe concentric constriction of the visual field in subjects with methylmercury intoxication measured manually with the Goldman perimeter. The present results amplify concerns regarding potential medical risks of exposure to environmental mercury sources by demonstrating significant and widespread reductions of visual sensitivity using the more reliable automated perimetry. (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Examination of the performance of different pointwise linear regression progression criteria to detect glaucomatous visual field change

Background: We aimed to investigate the performance of five different trend analysis criteria for the detection of glaucomatous progression and to determine the most frequently and rapidly progressing locations of the visual field. Design: Retrospective cohort. Participants or Samples: Treated glaucoma patients with =8 Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA)-standard 24-2 visual field tests. Methods: Progression was determined using trend analysis. Five different criteria were used: (A) =1 significantly progressing point; (B) =2 significantly progressing points; (C) =2 progressing points located in the same hemifield; (D) at least two adjacent progressing points located in the same hemifield; (E) =2 progressing points in the same Garway-Heath map sector. Main Outcome Measures: Number of progressing eyes and false-positive results. Results: We included 587 patients. The number of eyes reaching a progression endpoint using each criterion was: A = 300 (51%); B = 212 (36%); C = 194 (33%); D = 170 (29%); and E = 186 (31%) (P = 0.03). The numbers of eyes with positive slopes were: A = 13 (4.3%); B = 3 (1.4%); C = 3 (1.5%); D = 2 (1.1%); and E = 3 (1.6%) (P = 0.06). The global slopes for progressing eyes were more negative in Groups B, C and D than in Group A (P = 0.004). The visual field locations that progressed more often were those in the nasal field adjacent to the horizontal midline. Conclusions: Pointwise linear regression criteria that take into account the retinal nerve fibre layer anatomy enhances the specificity of trend analysis for the detection glaucomatous visual field progression.

Rates of Change in the Visual Field and Optic Disc in Patients with Distinct Patterns of Glaucomatous Optic Disc Damage

Purpose: To investigate the rate of visual field and optic disc change in patients with distinct patterns of glaucomatous optic disc damage. Design: Prospective longitudinal study. Participants: A total of 131 patients with open-angle glaucoma with focal (n = 45), diffuse (n = 42), and sclerotic (n = 44) optic disc damage. Methods: Patients were examined every 4 months with standard automated perimetry (SAP, SITA Standard, 24-2 test, Humphrey Field Analyzer, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA) and confocal scanning laser tomography (CSLT, Heidelberg Retina Tomograph, Heidelberg Engineering GmbH, Heidelberg, Germany) for a period of 4 years. During this time, patients were treated according to a predefined protocol to achieve a target intraocular pressure (IOP). Rates of change were estimated by robust linear regression of visual field mean deviation (MD) and global optic disc neuroretinal rim area with follow-up time. Main Outcome Measures: Rates of change in MD and rim area. Results: Rates of visual field change in patients with focal optic disc damage (mean -0.34, standard deviation [SD] 0.69 dB/year) were faster than in patients with sclerotic (mean - 0.14, SD 0.77 dB/year) and diffuse (mean + 0.01, SD 0.37 dB/year) optic disc damage (P = 0.003, Kruskal-Wallis). Rates of optic disc change in patients with focal optic disc damage (mean - 11.70, SD 25.5 x 10(-3) mm(2)/year) were faster than in patients with diffuse (mean -9.16, SD 14.9 x 10(-3) mm(2)/year) and sclerotic (mean -0.45, SD 20.6 x 10(-3) mm(2)/year) optic disc damage, although the differences were not statistically significant (P = 0.11). Absolute IOP reduction from untreated levels was similar among the groups (P = 0.59). Conclusions: Patients with focal optic disc damage had faster rates of visual field change and a tendency toward faster rates of optic disc deterioration when compared with patients with diffuse and sclerotic optic disc damage, despite similar IOP reductions during follow-up. Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references. Ophthalmology 2012; 119: 294-303 (C) 2012 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.