964 resultados para GLOW CURVE


Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

PURPOSE: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) rise in normal individuals and primary open-angle glaucoma patients and the safety and efficacy of ibopamine eye drops in different concentrations as a provocative test for glaucoma. METHODS: Glaucoma patients underwent (same eye) the ibopamine provocative test with two concentrations, 1% and 2%, in a random sequence at least 3 weeks apart, but not more than 3 months. The normal individuals were randomly submitted to one of the concentrations of ibopamine (1% and 2%). The test was considered positive if there was an IOP rise greater than 3 or 4 mmHg at 30 or 45 minutes to test which subset of the test has the best sensitivity (Se)/specificity (Sp). RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in any of the IOP measurements, comparing 1% with 2% ibopamine. The IOP was significantly higher at 30 and 45 minutes with both concentrations (p<0.001). The best sensitivity/specificity ratio was achieved with the cutoff point set as greater than 3 mmHg at 45 minutes with 2% ibopamine (area under the ROC curve: 0.864, Se: 84.6%; Sp:73.3%). All patients described a slight burning after ibopamine's instillation. CONCLUSION: 2% ibopamine is recommended as a provocative test for glaucoma. Because both concentrations have similar ability to rise IOP, 1% ibopamine may be used to treat ocular hypotony.

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

PURPOSE: To compare the 2% ibopamine provocative test with the water drinking test as a provocative test for glaucoma. METHODS: Primary open-angle glaucoma patients and normal individuals were selected from CEROF-Universidade Federal de Goiânia UFG, and underwent the 2% ibopamine provocative test and the water drinking test in a randomized fashion, at least 1 week apart. Intraocular pressure (IOP) before and after both tests, Bland-Altman graph, sensitivity and specificity (as mesured by ROC curves) were obtained for both methods. RESULTS: Forty-seven eyes from 25 patients were included (27 eyes from 15 glaucoma patients and 20 eyes from 10 normal individuals), with a mean age of 54.2 ± 12.7 years. The mean MD of glaucoma patients was -2.8 ± 2.11 dB. There was no statistically difference in the baseline IOP (p=0.8) comparing glaucoma patients, but positive after the provocative tests (p=0.03), and in the IOP variation (4.4 ± 1.3 mmHg for ibopamine and 3.2 ± 2.2 mmHg for water drinking test, p=0.01). There was no difference in all studied parameters for normal individuals. The Bland-Altman graph showed high dispersion comparing both methods. The areas under the ROC curve were 0.987 for the ibopamine provocative test, and 0.807 for the water-drinking test. CONCLUSION: In this selected subgroup of glaucoma patients with early visual field defect, the ibopamine provocative test has shown better sensitivity/specificity than the water drinking test.

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Universidade Estadual de Campinas . Faculdade de Educação Física

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Universidade Estadual de Campinas . Faculdade de Educação Física

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Universidade Estadual de Campinas . Faculdade de Educação Física

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Universidade Estadual de Campinas. Faculdade de Educação Física

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Universidade Estadual de Campinas. Faculdade de Educação Física

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Universidade Estadual de Campinas . Faculdade de Educação Física

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Universidade Estadual de Campinas. Faculdade de Educação Física

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Universidade Estadual de Campinas. Faculdade de Educação Física

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Universidade Estadual de Campinas . Faculdade de Educação Física

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Universidade Estadual de Campinas . Faculdade de Educação Física

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Universidade Estadual de Campinas . Faculdade de Educação Física

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Universidade Estadual de Campinas. Faculdade de Educação Física