Detecting Early to Mild Glaucomatous Damage: A Comparison of the Multifocal VEP and Automated Perimetry

Donald C. Hood, Phamornsak Thienprasiddhi, Vivienne C. Greenstein, Bryan J. Winn, Nitin Ohri, Jeffrey M. Liebmann, Robert Ritch

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

94 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE. To gain better understanding of the relationship between abnormalities detected by the multifocal VEP (mfVEP) compared with those detected by static achromatic, automated perimetry in patients with glaucoma. METHODS. Fifty patients were studied who had open-angle glaucoma that met the following criteria: (1) a mean deviation (MD) of better than -8 dB in both eyes on the 24-2 Humphrey visual field (HVF) test (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA); and (2) glaucomatous damage in at least one eye, as defined by a glaucomatous optic disc and an abnormal 24-2 HVF test result (pattern standard deviation [PSD] <5% and/or glaucoma hemifield test [GHT] results outside normal limits). Monocular mfVEPs were obtained from each eye by using a pattern-reversal dartboard array, 44.5° in diameter, which contained 60 sectors. Recording electrodes were placed at the inion (I) and I+4 cm, and also at two lateral locations up 1 cm and over 4 cm from I. Monocular and interocular mfVEP probability plots were derived by comparing the results with those of normal control subjects. For both the HVF and mfVEP probability plots, a hemifield was classified as abnormal if three or more contiguous points were significant at less than 5%, with at least one at less than 1%. RESULTS. Of the 200 hemifields tested (50 patients × two eyes × two hemifields), 75 showed significant clusters on the I-IVF HVF, and 74 (monocular probability plot) and 93 (monocular or interocular plot) showed significant clusters on the mfVEP. Overall, the HVF and mfVEP results agreed on 74% of the hemifields, and 90 hemifields were normal and 58 were abnormal on both the mfVEP (interocular and/or monocular abnormal) and HVF cluster tests. Of the 52 disagreements, 35 hemifields had a significant cluster on the mfVEP, but not on the HVF, whereas the reverse was true of 17 hemifields. A case-by-case analysis indicated that misses and false-positive results occurred on both the HVF and mfVEP tests. CONCLUSIONS. As predicted from a theoretical analysis, under these conditions (i.e., the signal-to-noise level) the HVF and monocular mfVEP tests showed a comparable number of defects, and, with the addition of the interocular test, the mfVEP showed more abnormalities than the HVF. However, although there were abnormalities detected by the mfVEP that were missed by the HVF, the reverse was true as well.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)492-498
Number of pages7
JournalInvestigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science
Volume45
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2004
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Visual Field Tests
Visual Fields
Glaucoma
Open Angle Glaucoma
Optic Disk
Noise
Electrodes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Detecting Early to Mild Glaucomatous Damage : A Comparison of the Multifocal VEP and Automated Perimetry. / Hood, Donald C.; Thienprasiddhi, Phamornsak; Greenstein, Vivienne C.; Winn, Bryan J.; Ohri, Nitin; Liebmann, Jeffrey M.; Ritch, Robert.

In: Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Vol. 45, No. 2, 02.2004, p. 492-498.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hood, Donald C. ; Thienprasiddhi, Phamornsak ; Greenstein, Vivienne C. ; Winn, Bryan J. ; Ohri, Nitin ; Liebmann, Jeffrey M. ; Ritch, Robert. / Detecting Early to Mild Glaucomatous Damage : A Comparison of the Multifocal VEP and Automated Perimetry. In: Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2004 ; Vol. 45, No. 2. pp. 492-498.
@article{10106c36fdc449fea47b10c33bad07f7,
title = "Detecting Early to Mild Glaucomatous Damage: A Comparison of the Multifocal VEP and Automated Perimetry",
abstract = "PURPOSE. To gain better understanding of the relationship between abnormalities detected by the multifocal VEP (mfVEP) compared with those detected by static achromatic, automated perimetry in patients with glaucoma. METHODS. Fifty patients were studied who had open-angle glaucoma that met the following criteria: (1) a mean deviation (MD) of better than -8 dB in both eyes on the 24-2 Humphrey visual field (HVF) test (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA); and (2) glaucomatous damage in at least one eye, as defined by a glaucomatous optic disc and an abnormal 24-2 HVF test result (pattern standard deviation [PSD] <5{\%} and/or glaucoma hemifield test [GHT] results outside normal limits). Monocular mfVEPs were obtained from each eye by using a pattern-reversal dartboard array, 44.5° in diameter, which contained 60 sectors. Recording electrodes were placed at the inion (I) and I+4 cm, and also at two lateral locations up 1 cm and over 4 cm from I. Monocular and interocular mfVEP probability plots were derived by comparing the results with those of normal control subjects. For both the HVF and mfVEP probability plots, a hemifield was classified as abnormal if three or more contiguous points were significant at less than 5{\%}, with at least one at less than 1{\%}. RESULTS. Of the 200 hemifields tested (50 patients × two eyes × two hemifields), 75 showed significant clusters on the I-IVF HVF, and 74 (monocular probability plot) and 93 (monocular or interocular plot) showed significant clusters on the mfVEP. Overall, the HVF and mfVEP results agreed on 74{\%} of the hemifields, and 90 hemifields were normal and 58 were abnormal on both the mfVEP (interocular and/or monocular abnormal) and HVF cluster tests. Of the 52 disagreements, 35 hemifields had a significant cluster on the mfVEP, but not on the HVF, whereas the reverse was true of 17 hemifields. A case-by-case analysis indicated that misses and false-positive results occurred on both the HVF and mfVEP tests. CONCLUSIONS. As predicted from a theoretical analysis, under these conditions (i.e., the signal-to-noise level) the HVF and monocular mfVEP tests showed a comparable number of defects, and, with the addition of the interocular test, the mfVEP showed more abnormalities than the HVF. However, although there were abnormalities detected by the mfVEP that were missed by the HVF, the reverse was true as well.",
author = "Hood, {Donald C.} and Phamornsak Thienprasiddhi and Greenstein, {Vivienne C.} and Winn, {Bryan J.} and Nitin Ohri and Liebmann, {Jeffrey M.} and Robert Ritch",
year = "2004",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1167/iovs.03-0602",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "45",
pages = "492--498",
journal = "Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science",
issn = "0146-0404",
publisher = "Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Detecting Early to Mild Glaucomatous Damage

T2 - A Comparison of the Multifocal VEP and Automated Perimetry

AU - Hood, Donald C.

AU - Thienprasiddhi, Phamornsak

AU - Greenstein, Vivienne C.

AU - Winn, Bryan J.

AU - Ohri, Nitin

AU - Liebmann, Jeffrey M.

AU - Ritch, Robert

PY - 2004/2

Y1 - 2004/2

N2 - PURPOSE. To gain better understanding of the relationship between abnormalities detected by the multifocal VEP (mfVEP) compared with those detected by static achromatic, automated perimetry in patients with glaucoma. METHODS. Fifty patients were studied who had open-angle glaucoma that met the following criteria: (1) a mean deviation (MD) of better than -8 dB in both eyes on the 24-2 Humphrey visual field (HVF) test (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA); and (2) glaucomatous damage in at least one eye, as defined by a glaucomatous optic disc and an abnormal 24-2 HVF test result (pattern standard deviation [PSD] <5% and/or glaucoma hemifield test [GHT] results outside normal limits). Monocular mfVEPs were obtained from each eye by using a pattern-reversal dartboard array, 44.5° in diameter, which contained 60 sectors. Recording electrodes were placed at the inion (I) and I+4 cm, and also at two lateral locations up 1 cm and over 4 cm from I. Monocular and interocular mfVEP probability plots were derived by comparing the results with those of normal control subjects. For both the HVF and mfVEP probability plots, a hemifield was classified as abnormal if three or more contiguous points were significant at less than 5%, with at least one at less than 1%. RESULTS. Of the 200 hemifields tested (50 patients × two eyes × two hemifields), 75 showed significant clusters on the I-IVF HVF, and 74 (monocular probability plot) and 93 (monocular or interocular plot) showed significant clusters on the mfVEP. Overall, the HVF and mfVEP results agreed on 74% of the hemifields, and 90 hemifields were normal and 58 were abnormal on both the mfVEP (interocular and/or monocular abnormal) and HVF cluster tests. Of the 52 disagreements, 35 hemifields had a significant cluster on the mfVEP, but not on the HVF, whereas the reverse was true of 17 hemifields. A case-by-case analysis indicated that misses and false-positive results occurred on both the HVF and mfVEP tests. CONCLUSIONS. As predicted from a theoretical analysis, under these conditions (i.e., the signal-to-noise level) the HVF and monocular mfVEP tests showed a comparable number of defects, and, with the addition of the interocular test, the mfVEP showed more abnormalities than the HVF. However, although there were abnormalities detected by the mfVEP that were missed by the HVF, the reverse was true as well.

AB - PURPOSE. To gain better understanding of the relationship between abnormalities detected by the multifocal VEP (mfVEP) compared with those detected by static achromatic, automated perimetry in patients with glaucoma. METHODS. Fifty patients were studied who had open-angle glaucoma that met the following criteria: (1) a mean deviation (MD) of better than -8 dB in both eyes on the 24-2 Humphrey visual field (HVF) test (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA); and (2) glaucomatous damage in at least one eye, as defined by a glaucomatous optic disc and an abnormal 24-2 HVF test result (pattern standard deviation [PSD] <5% and/or glaucoma hemifield test [GHT] results outside normal limits). Monocular mfVEPs were obtained from each eye by using a pattern-reversal dartboard array, 44.5° in diameter, which contained 60 sectors. Recording electrodes were placed at the inion (I) and I+4 cm, and also at two lateral locations up 1 cm and over 4 cm from I. Monocular and interocular mfVEP probability plots were derived by comparing the results with those of normal control subjects. For both the HVF and mfVEP probability plots, a hemifield was classified as abnormal if three or more contiguous points were significant at less than 5%, with at least one at less than 1%. RESULTS. Of the 200 hemifields tested (50 patients × two eyes × two hemifields), 75 showed significant clusters on the I-IVF HVF, and 74 (monocular probability plot) and 93 (monocular or interocular plot) showed significant clusters on the mfVEP. Overall, the HVF and mfVEP results agreed on 74% of the hemifields, and 90 hemifields were normal and 58 were abnormal on both the mfVEP (interocular and/or monocular abnormal) and HVF cluster tests. Of the 52 disagreements, 35 hemifields had a significant cluster on the mfVEP, but not on the HVF, whereas the reverse was true of 17 hemifields. A case-by-case analysis indicated that misses and false-positive results occurred on both the HVF and mfVEP tests. CONCLUSIONS. As predicted from a theoretical analysis, under these conditions (i.e., the signal-to-noise level) the HVF and monocular mfVEP tests showed a comparable number of defects, and, with the addition of the interocular test, the mfVEP showed more abnormalities than the HVF. However, although there were abnormalities detected by the mfVEP that were missed by the HVF, the reverse was true as well.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0942265594&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0942265594&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1167/iovs.03-0602

DO - 10.1167/iovs.03-0602

M3 - Article

C2 - 14744890

AN - SCOPUS:0942265594

VL - 45

SP - 492

EP - 498

JO - Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

JF - Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

SN - 0146-0404

IS - 2

ER -