Intraocular preure and progreion of glaucomatou viual field lo

PURPOE: To evaluate the relationhip between intraocular preure and viual field progreion in patient with primary open-angle glaucoma. METHOD: We propectively followed 113 patient with early to moderate glaucomatou field damage. Conventional automated tatic perimetry, high-pa reolution perimetry, and intraocular preure meaurement were carried out at 6-month interval. The mean and the highet intraocular preure in the follow-up were compared in table and progreing patient with each perimetric technique. REULT: The mean (± D) follow-up wa 4.5 ± 0.9 year. The mean (± D) intraocular preure in patient remaining table with conventional perimetry [18.2 ± 3.3 mm Hg, n = 81 (71.7%)] wa not ignificantly different (P =.65) from thoe in whom it progreed (17.9 ± 3.3 mm Hg, n = 32 [28.3%]). The mean intraocular preure in patient remaining table with high-pa reolution perimetry (17.9 ± 3.5 mm Hg, n = 63 [55.8%]) wa not ignificantly different (P = .33) from thoe in whom it progreed (18.5 ± 3.0 mm Hg, n = 50 [44.2%]). The mean (± D) of the highet (ingle or three highet) preure during follow-up for table and progreing patient with conventional perimetry wa not ignificantly different (22.6 ± 5.0 and 23.0 ± 4.6 mm Hg, repectively, P = .76). However, for high-pa reolution perimetry, the difference wa highly ignificant (21.6 ± 4.5 and 24.1 ± 4.9 mm Hg, repectively, P< .01). Furthermore, patient who progreed with high-pa reolution perimetry had more damaged baeline field compared with thoe who remained table (P< .01). CONCLUION: The mean level of intraocular preure doe not differentiate glaucoma patient with progreive viual field lo from one who remained table. Baeline viual field tatu and peak intraocular preure of patient who progre with high-pa reolution perimetry are ignificantly different from thoe who remain table.