advertisement
Abstract #91802 Published in IGR 21-4
Association of Patterns of Glaucomatous Macular Damage With Contrast Sensitivity and Facial Recognition in Patients With Glaucoma
Hirji SH; Hood DC; Liebmann JM; Blumberg DMJAMA ophthalmology 2021; 139: 27-32
See also comment(s) by Deanna Taylor & David Crabb •
IMPORTANCE: Facial recognition is a critical activity of daily living that relies on macular function. Glaucomatous macular damage may result in impaired facial recognition that may negatively affect patient quality of life. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of patterns of glaucomatous macular damage with contrast sensitivity and facial recognition among patients with glaucoma. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this prospective cohort study at a single tertiary care center, 144 eyes of 72 consecutive patients with glaucoma with good visual acuity (20/40 or better in each eye) were studied. Data were collected from March to April 2019. EXPOSURES: Eyes with macular damage were categorized as having focal, diffuse, or mixed (focal and diffuse) damage based on optic disc and macular spectral-domain optical coherence tomography and 10-2 visual field (VF) damage. Only eyes with focal or diffuse damage were included. Higher-acuity and lower-acuity eyes were determined by 10-2 VF mean deviation (MD). Facial disability was defined as facial recognition scores at the 2% level of normal participants. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: (1) Monocular contrast threshold as measured by the Freiburg Visual Acuity and Contrast Test and (2) binocular facial recognition as measured by the Cambridge Face Memory Test. RESULTS: Of the 72 included patients, 49 (68%) were White and 41 (57%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 67.0 (11.6) years. Eyes with diffuse damage had greater contrast impairment compared with eyes with focal damage (β = -0.5; 95% CI, -0.6 to -0.4; P < .001) after adjusting for 10-2 VF MD, 24-2 VF MD, age, presence of an early cataract, and number of drops. Similarly, Cambridge Face Memory Test scores were significantly lower in patients with diffuse rather than focal macular damage, regardless of eye (better-seeing eye: β = 10.0; 95% CI, 2.0 to 18.2; P = .001; worse-seeing eye: β = 5.5; 95% CI, 0.8 to 10.0; P = .23). Relative risk of facial disability was greater for patients with diffuse but not focal macular damage in the better-seeing eye (relative risk, 86.2; 95% CI, 2.7 to 2783.3; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort study, diffuse rather than focal glaucomatous macular damage was associated with diminished facial recognition and contrast sensitivity. Evaluation of macular optical coherence tomography and 10-2 VF and resultant detection of diffuse macular damage may help minimize glaucoma-related visual disability.
Bernard and Shirlee Brown Glaucoma Research Laboratory, Department of Ophthalmology, Edward S. Harkness Eye Institute, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York.
Full articleClassification:
6.6.3 Special methods (e.g. color, contrast, SWAP etc.) (Part of: 6 Clinical examination methods > 6.6 Visual field examination and other visual function tests)
6.9.2.2 Posterior (Part of: 6 Clinical examination methods > 6.9 Computerized image analysis > 6.9.2 Optical coherence tomography)
6.6.2 Automated (Part of: 6 Clinical examination methods > 6.6 Visual field examination and other visual function tests)
