Ocular Pulse Amplitude and Doppler Waveform Analysis in Glaucoma Patients

PURPOSE: To determine the correlation between ocular blood flow velocities and ocular pulse amplitude (OPA) in glaucoma patients using colour Doppler imaging (CDI) waveform analysis. METHOD: A prospective, observer-masked, case-control study was performed. OPA and blood flow variables from central retinal artery and vein (CRA, CRV), nasal and temporal short posterior ciliary arteries (NPCA, TPCA) and ophthalmic artery (OA) were obtained through dynamic contour tonometry and CDI, respectively. Univariate and multiple regression analyses were performed to explore the correlations between OPA and retrobulbar CDI waveform and systemic cardiovascular parameters (blood pressure, blood pressure amplitude, mean ocular perfusion pressure and peripheral pulse). RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-two patients were included [healthy controls: 55; primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG): 74; normal-tension glaucoma (NTG): 63]. OPA was statistically different between groups (Healthy: 3.17 ± 1.2 mmHg; NTG: 2.58 ± 1.2 mmHg; POAG: 2.60 ± 1.1 mmHg; p < 0.01), but not between the glaucoma groups (p = 0.60). Multiple regression models to explain OPA variance were made for each cohort (healthy: p < 0.001, r = 0.605; NTG: p = 0.003, r = 0.372; POAG: p < 0.001, r = 0.412). OPA was independently associated with retrobulbar CDI parameters in the healthy subjects and POAG patients (healthy CRV resistance index: β = 3.37, CI: 0.16-6.59; healthy NPCA mean systolic/diastolic velocity ratio: β = 1.34, CI: 0.52-2.15; POAG TPCA mean systolic velocity: β = 0.14, CI 0.05-0.23). OPA in the NTG group was associated with diastolic blood pressure and pulse rate (β = -0.04, CI: -0.06 to -0.01; β = -0.04, CI: -0.06 to -0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Vascular-related models provide a better explanation to OPA variance in healthy individuals than in glaucoma patients. The variables that influence OPA seem to be different in healthy, POAG and NTG patients.

Variation in Haemodynamic Monitoring for Major Surgery in European Nations: Secondary Analysis of the EuSOS Dataset

BACKGROUND: The use of cardiac output monitoring may improve patient outcomes after major surgery. However, little is known about the use of this technology across nations. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a previously published observational study. Patients aged 16 years and over undergoing major non-cardiac surgery in a 7-day period in April 2011 were included into this analysis. The objective is to describe prevalence and type of cardiac output monitoring used in major surgery in Europe. RESULTS: Included in the analysis were 12,170 patients from the surgical services of 426 hospitals in 28 European nations. One thousand four hundred and sixteen patients (11.6 %) were exposed to cardiac output monitoring, and 2343 patients (19.3 %) received a central venous catheter. Patients with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores were more frequently exposed to cardiac output monitoring (ASA I and II, 643 patients [8.6 %]; ASA III-V, 768 patients [16.2 %]; p < 0.01) and central venous catheter (ASA I and II, 874 patients [11.8 %]; ASA III-V, 1463 patients [30.9 %]; p < 0.01). In elective surgery, 990 patients (10.8 %) were exposed to cardiac output monitoring, in urgent surgery 252 patients (11.7 %) and in emergency surgery 173 patients (19.8 %). A central venous catheter was used in 1514 patients (16.6 %) undergoing elective, in 480 patients (22.2 %) undergoing urgent and in 349 patients (39.9 %) undergoing emergency surgery. Nine hundred sixty patients (7.9 %) were monitored using arterial waveform analysis, 238 patients (2.0 %) using oesophageal Doppler ultrasound, 55 patients (0.5 %) using a pulmonary artery catheter and 44 patients (2.0 %) using other technologies. Across nations, cardiac output monitoring use varied from 0.0 % (0/249 patients) to 27.5 % (19/69 patients), whilst central venous catheter use varied from 5.6 % (7/125 patients) to 43.2 % (16/37 patients). CONCLUSIONS: One in ten patients undergoing major surgery is exposed to cardiac output monitoring whilst one in five receives a central venous catheter. The use of both technologies varies widely across Europe.