Predictors of Success in Selective Laser Trabeculoplasty: Data From the Lausanne Laser Trabeculoplasty Registry.
Elahi Sina, Rao Harsha L, Dumitru Alina, Mansouri Kaweh
AI Summary
This study found SLT success in the fellow eye strongly predicts treatment outcome in the current eye, aiding patient selection for this glaucoma therapy.
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to determine the factors associated with the outcomes of selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT).
Patients and methods: This was a database analysis (Lausanne Laser Trabeculoplasty Registry) of patients who had SLT between 2015 and 2017. Exclusion criteria were age below 40 years and diagnosis other than ocular hypertension and open-angle glaucoma. Intraocular pressure (IOP) and number of medications were recorded before and at various follow-ups after laser treatment. Success was defined as "complete" if an IOP reduction of at least 20% was observed at a given time, and "qualified" if any reduction of IOP was observed with either at least a 20% difference from baseline or a reduction in IOP-lowering medications. Associations of complete and qualified success with patients' baseline characteristics, laser settings, and clinical examination findings were studied using multivariate regression and survival analysis.
Results
A total of 170 eyes (126 patients) were included. Mean age was 68.3±12.2 years and 57.9% of the study cohort were female individuals. Average baseline IOP was 18.7±4.8 mm Hg, and average IOP reduction was 3.3±4.3 (-17.6% from baseline) and 3.5±3.9 mm Hg (-18.7% from baseline) at years 1 and 2, respectively. Male sex [odds ratio (OR)=2.79, P=0.02], baseline IOP (OR=1.15, P<0.01), and medical treatment before SLT (OR=2.57, P=0.03) were positive predictors of success. Total energy was associated with the duration of success. SLT outcome was strongly correlated to the outcome of the fellow eye, which represented the strongest predictor (OR=17.33, P<0.01).
Conclusions
SLT achieved good IOP-lowering in a majority of patients with mild-to-moderate glaucoma, while it was inefficient in up to 35% of eyes. SLT success in the fellow eye was a strong predictive factor.
MeSH Terms
Shields Classification
Key Concepts4
Selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT) achieved an average intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction of 3.3 +/- 4.3 mm Hg (-17.6% from baseline) at year 1 and 3.5 +/- 3.9 mm Hg (-18.7% from baseline) at year 2 in 170 eyes (126 patients) with ocular hypertension and open-angle glaucoma.
Male sex [odds ratio (OR)=2.79, P=0.02], baseline IOP (OR=1.15, P<0.01), and medical treatment before selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT) (OR=2.57, P=0.03) were positive predictors of success for SLT in 170 eyes (126 patients) with ocular hypertension and open-angle glaucoma.
The outcome of selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT) in the fellow eye was strongly correlated to the outcome of the treated eye, representing the strongest predictor of SLT success (OR=17.33, P<0.01) in 170 eyes (126 patients) with ocular hypertension and open-angle glaucoma.
Selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT) was inefficient in up to 35% of eyes in a study of 170 eyes (126 patients) with mild-to-moderate glaucoma.
Related Articles5
Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Direct Selective Laser Trabeculoplasty in Open-Angle Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension: GLAUrious Study.
Randomized Controlled Trial180- Versus 360-Degree Selective Laser Trabeculoplasty in Open Angle Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Systematic ReviewEfficacy of selective laser trabeculoplasty on lowering intraocular pressure fluctuations and nocturnal peak intraocular pressure in treated primary open-angle glaucoma patients.
Case SeriesDirect selective laser trabeculoplasty in open angle glaucoma study design: a multicentre, randomised, controlled, investigator-masked trial (GLAUrious).
Randomized Controlled TrialBaseline IOP predicts selective laser trabeculoplasty success at 1 year post-treatment: results from a randomised clinical trial.
Randomized Controlled TrialIs this article assigned to the wrong chapter(s)? Let us know.