Published date: Jul 29 2020

Journal Title: Journal of Ophthalmic and Vision Research

Issue title: July–September 2020, Volume 15, Issue 3

Pages: 318–325

DOI: 10.18502/jovr.v15i3.7450

Reza RazeghinejadGlaucoma Service, Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Zahra TajbakhshPoostchi Ophthalmology Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

Masoumeh Beigom MasoumpourPoostchi Ophthalmology Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

M. Hossein Nowroozzadehnowroozzadeh@hotmail.comPoostchi Ophthalmology Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

Purpose: To assess intraocular pressure (IOP) changes after the water drinking test (WDT) in patients with primary congenital glaucoma (PCG).

Methods: In this prospective interventional study, 20 eyes of 20 patients with PCG were included. All patients had undergone trabeculotomy. Six out of twenty eyes had received a glaucoma drainage device (GDD) implantation. IOP was measured using an air-puff tonometer at baseline, and 15, 30, 45, and 60 min after WDT. The repeated-measures analysis of variance test was used to compare the mean IOPs at different time points.

Results: The mean (± standard deviation) of participants’ age was 9.9 ± 2.7 years (range, 6 to 16 years), and 8 (40%) participants were male. The mean IOPs at baseline and 15, 30, 45, and 60 minutes after the WDT were 15.8 ± 3.7, 18.6 ± 3.4, 19.0 ± 3.8, 17.9 ± 3.8, and 16.9 ± 3.5 mmHg, respectively (P < 0.001). Pairwise comparisons revealed that the mean IOPs after 15 and 30 min were significantly greater than the baseline IOP (P < 0.001 and P = 0.002, respectively); however, the difference in mean IOPs after 45 and 60 min were not statistically significant from the baseline IOP. The averages of IOP peak and IOP fluctuation after the WDT were 20.0 ± 3.5 and 4.2 ± 2.9 mmHg, respectively. IOP fluctuation in those who underwent trabeculotomy alone was twice that of those with GDDs, but the difference was not statistically significant (5.0 vs 2.5 mmHg; P = 0.08).

Conclusions: In patients with PCG, WDT induced significant IOP elevation 15 and 30 min after the test, which returned to pre-test values after 45 min.

1. Taylor RH, Ainsworth JR, Evans AR, Levin AV. The epidemiology of pediatric glaucoma: the Toronto experience. Journal of AAPOS 1999;3:308–315.

2. Ko F, Papadopoulos M, Khaw PT. Primary congenital glaucoma. Prog Brain Res 2015;221:177–189.

3. Collaborative Normal-Tension Glaucoma Study Group. The effectiveness of intraocular pressure reduction in the treatment of normal-tension glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 1998;126:498–505.

4. Miller D. The relationship between diurnal tension variation and the water-drinking test. Am J Ophthalmol 1964;58:243–246.

5. Yoshikawa K, Inoue T, Inoue Y. Normal tension glaucoma: the value of predictive tests. Acta Ophthalmologica 1993;71:463–470.

6. Kumar RS, de Guzman MH, Ong PY, Goldberg I. Does peak intraocular pressure measured by water drinking test reflect peak circadian levels? A pilot study. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2008;36:312–315.

7. Susanna R, Jr, Clement C, Goldberg I, Hatanaka M. Applications of the water drinking test in glaucoma management. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2017;45:625–631.

8. Mansouri K, Orguel S, Mermoud A, Haefliger I, Flammer J, Ravinet E, et al. Quality of diurnal intraocular pressure control in primary open-angle patients treated with latanoprost compared with surgically treated glaucoma patients: a prospective trial. Br J Ophthalmol 2008;92:332–336.

9. Danesh-Meyer HV, Papchenko T, Tan YW, Gamble GD. Medically controlled glaucoma patients show greater increase in intraocular pressure than surgically controlled patients with the water drinking test. Ophthalmology 2008;115:1566–1570.

10. Guedes RA, Guedes VM, Chaoubah A. [Use of water drinking test after non-penetrating deep sclerectomy]. J Fr Ophtalmol 2005;28:1076–1080.

11. Martinez P, Trubnik V, Leiby BE, Hegarty SE, Razeghinejad R, Savant S, et al. A comparative study of the water drinking test in eyes with open-angle glaucoma and prior trabeculectomy or tube shunt. J Glaucoma 2017;26:119– 125.

12. Spaeth GL, Henderer J, Liu C, Kesen M, Altangerel U, Bayer A, et al. The disc damage likelihood scale: reproducibility of a new method of estimating the amount of optic nerve damage caused by glaucoma. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 2002;100:181–186.

13. Kerr NM, Lew HR, Skalicky SE. Selective laser trabeculoplasty reduces intraocular pressure peak in response to the water drinking test. J Glaucoma 2016;25:727–731.

14. Mansouri K, Medeiros FA, Marchase N, Tatham AJ, Auerbach D, Weinreb RN. Assessment of choroidal thickness and volume during the water drinking test by swept-source optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology 2013;120:2508–2516.

15. Ozyol E, Ozyol P, Karalezli A. Reproducibility of the waterdrinking test in patients with exfoliation syndrome and exfoliative glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol 2016;94:e795– e798.

16. De Moraes CG, Furlanetto RL, Reis AS, Vegini F, Cavalcanti NF, Susanna R, Jr. Agreement between stress intraocular pressure and long-term intraocular pressure measurements in primary open angle glaucoma. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2009;37:270–274.

17. Asrani S, Zeimer R, Wilensky J, Gieser D, Vitale S, Lindenmuth K. Large diurnal fluctuations in intraocular pressure are an independent risk factor in patients with glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2000;9:134–142.

18. Bengtsson B, Leske MC, Hyman L, Heijl A. Fluctuation of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression in the early manifest glaucoma trial. Ophthalmology 2007;114:205–209.

19. 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.

20. Caprioli J, Coleman AL. Intraocular pressure fluctuation a risk factor for visual field progression at low intraocular pressures in the advanced glaucoma intervention study. Ophthalmology 2008;115:1123–1129.e1123.

21. Nouri-Mahdavi K, Hoffman D, Coleman AL, Liu G, Li G, Gaasterland D, et al. Predictive factors for glaucomatous visual field progression in the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. Ophthalmology 2004;111:1627–1635.

22. Barkana Y, Anis S, Liebmann J, Tello C, Ritch R. Clinical utility of intraocular pressure monitoring outside of normal office hours in patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2006;124:793–797.

23. Zeimer RC, Wilensky JT, Gieser DK, Viana MA. Association between intraocular pressure peaks and progression of visual field loss. Ophthalmology 1991;98:64–69.

24. Sakata R, Aihara M, Murata H, Saito H, Iwase A, Yasuda N, et al. Intraocular pressure change over a habitual 24-hour period after changing posture or drinking water and related factors in normal tension glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013;54:5313–5320.

25. Tham YC, Li X, Wong TY, Quigley HA, Aung T, Cheng CY. Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology 2014;121:2081–2090.

26. Abdolrahimzadeh S, Fameli V, Mollo R, Contestabile MT, Perdicchi A, Recupero SM. Rare diseases leading to childhood glaucoma: epidemiology, pathophysiogenesis, and management. Biomed Res Int 2015;2015:781294.

27. Zareei A, Razeghinejad MR, Nowroozzadeh MH, Mehrabi Y, Aghazadeh-Amiri M. Intraocular pressure measurement by three different tonometers in primary congenital glaucoma. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 2015;10:43–48.

28. Cook JA, Botello AP, Elders A, Fathi Ali A, Azuara-Blanco A, Fraser C, et al. Systematic review of the agreement of tonometers with Goldmann applanation tonometry. Ophthalmology 2012;119:1552–1557.