Octopus Standard Automated Perimetry, Pulsar Perimetry, Moorfields Motion Displacement Test and Heidelberg Retinal Tomography in Glaucoma Detection - A Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy

Purpose: To investigate the accuracy of 4 clinical instruments in the detection of glaucomatous damage. Methods: 102 eyes of 55 test subjects (Age mean = 66.5yrs, range = [39; 89]) underwent Heidelberg Retinal Tomography (HRTIII), (disc area<2.43); and standard automated perimetry (SAP) using Octopus (Dynamic); Pulsar (TOP); and Moorfields Motion Displacement Test (MDT) (ESTA strategy). Eyes were separated into three groups 1) Healthy (H): IOP<21mmHg and healthy discs (clinical examination), 39 subjects, 78 eyes; 2) Glaucoma suspect (GS): Suspicious discs (clinical examination), 12 subjects, 15 eyes; 3) Glaucoma (G): progressive structural or functional loss, 14 subjects, 20 eyes. Clinical diagnostic precision was examined using the cut-off associated with the p<5% normative limit of MD (Octopus/Pulsar), PTD (MDT) and MRA (HRT) analysis. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were calculated for each instrument. Results: See table Conclusions: Despite the advantage of defining glaucoma suspects using clinical optic disc examination, the HRT did not yield significantly higher accuracy than functional measures. HRT, MDT and Octopus SAP yielded higher accuracy than Pulsar perimetry, although results did not reach statistical significance. Further studies are required to investigate the structure-function correlations between these instruments.

Comparative resilience of clinical perimetric tests to induced levels of intraocular straylight.

PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of intraocular straylight (IOS) induced by white opacity filters (WOF) on threshold measurements for stimuli employed in three perimeters: standard automated perimetry (SAP), pulsar perimetry (PP) and the Moorfields motion displacement test (MDT).¦METHODS: Four healthy young (24-28 years old) observers were tested six times with each perimeter, each time with one of five different WOFs and once without, inducing various levels of IOS (from 10% to 200%). An increase in IOS was measured with a straylight meter. The change in sensitivity from baseline was normalized, allowing comparison of standardized (z) scores (change divided by the SD of normative values) for each instrument.¦RESULTS: SAP and PP thresholds were significantly affected (P < 0.001) by moderate to large increases in IOS (50%-200%). The drop in motion displacement (MD) from baseline with WOF 5, was approximately 5 dB, in both SAP and PP which represents a clinically significant loss; in contrast the change in MD with MDT was on average 1 minute of arc, which is not likely to indicate a clinically significant loss.¦CONCLUSIONS: The Moorfields MDT is more robust to the effects of additional straylight in comparison with SAP or PP.

Spectrum of digoxin-induced ocular toxicity: a case report and literature review.

BACKGROUND: Digoxin intoxication results in predominantly digestive, cardiac and neurological symptoms. This case is outstanding in that the intoxication occurred in a nonagenarian and induced severe, extensively documented visual symptoms as well as dysphagia and proprioceptive illusions. Moreover, it went undiagnosed for a whole month despite close medical follow-up, illustrating the difficulty in recognizing drug-induced effects in a polymorbid patient. CASE PRESENTATION: Digoxin 0.25 mg qd for atrial fibrillation was prescribed to a 91-year-old woman with an estimated creatinine clearance of 18 ml/min. Over the following 2-3 weeks she developed nausea, vomiting and dysphagia, snowy and blurry vision, photopsia, dyschromatopsia, aggravated pre-existing formed visual hallucinations and proprioceptive illusions. She saw her family doctor twice and visited the eye clinic once until, 1 month after starting digoxin, she was admitted to the emergency room. Intoxication was confirmed by a serum digoxin level of 5.7 ng/ml (reference range 0.8-2 ng/ml). After stopping digoxin, general symptoms resolved in a few days, but visual complaints persisted. Examination by the ophthalmologist revealed decreased visual acuity in both eyes, 4/10 in the right eye (OD) and 5/10 in the left eye (OS), decreased color vision as demonstrated by a score of 1/13 in both eyes (OU) on Ishihara pseudoisochromatic plates, OS cataract, and dry age-related macular degeneration (ARMD). Computerized static perimetry showed non-specific diffuse alterations suggestive of either bilateral retinopathy or optic neuropathy. Full-field electroretinography (ERG) disclosed moderate diffuse rod and cone dysfunction and multifocal ERG revealed central loss of function OU. Visual symptoms progressively improved over the next 2 months, but multifocal ERG did not. The patient was finally discharged home after a 5 week hospital stay. CONCLUSION: This case is a reminder of a complication of digoxin treatment to be considered by any treating physician. If digoxin is prescribed in a vulnerable patient, close monitoring is mandatory. In general, when facing a new health problem in a polymorbid patient, it is crucial to elicit a complete history, with all recent drug changes and detailed complaints, and to include a drug adverse reaction in the differential diagnosis.