Cargando…
Does the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) accurately map visual field loss attributed to vigabatrin?
BACKGROUND: Vigabatrin (VGB) is an anti-epileptic medication which has been linked to peripheral constriction of the visual field. Documenting the natural history associated with continued VGB exposure is important when making decisions about the risk and benefits associated with the treatment. Due...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4391113/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25539569 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2415-14-166 |
_version_ | 1782365764465983488 |
---|---|
author | Conway, Miriam L Hosking, Sarah L Zhu, Haogang Cubbidge, Robert P |
author_facet | Conway, Miriam L Hosking, Sarah L Zhu, Haogang Cubbidge, Robert P |
author_sort | Conway, Miriam L |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Vigabatrin (VGB) is an anti-epileptic medication which has been linked to peripheral constriction of the visual field. Documenting the natural history associated with continued VGB exposure is important when making decisions about the risk and benefits associated with the treatment. Due to its speed the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) has become the algorithm of choice when carrying out Full Threshold automated static perimetry. SITA uses prior distributions of normal and glaucomatous visual field behaviour to estimate threshold sensitivity. As the abnormal model is based on glaucomatous behaviour this algorithm has not been validated for VGB recipients. We aim to assess the clinical utility of the SITA algorithm for accurately mapping VGB attributed field loss. METHODS: The sample comprised one randomly selected eye of 16 patients diagnosed with epilepsy, exposed to VGB therapy. A clinical diagnosis of VGB attributed visual field loss was documented in 44% of the group. The mean age was 39.3 years ± 14.5 years and the mean deviation was -4.76 dB ±4.34 dB. Each patient was examined with the Full Threshold, SITA Standard and SITA Fast algorithm. RESULTS: SITA Standard was on average approximately twice as fast (7.6 minutes) and SITA Fast approximately 3 times as fast (4.7 minutes) as examinations completed using the Full Threshold algorithm (15.8 minutes). In the clinical environment, the visual field outcome with both SITA algorithms was equivalent to visual field examination using the Full Threshold algorithm in terms of visual inspection of the grey scale plots , defect area and defect severity. CONCLUSIONS: Our research shows that both SITA algorithms are able to accurately map visual field loss attributed to VGB. As patients diagnosed with epilepsy are often vulnerable to fatigue, the time saving offered by SITA Fast means that this algorithm has a significant advantage for use with VGB recipients. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2415-14-166) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4391113 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-43911132015-04-10 Does the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) accurately map visual field loss attributed to vigabatrin? Conway, Miriam L Hosking, Sarah L Zhu, Haogang Cubbidge, Robert P BMC Ophthalmol Research Article BACKGROUND: Vigabatrin (VGB) is an anti-epileptic medication which has been linked to peripheral constriction of the visual field. Documenting the natural history associated with continued VGB exposure is important when making decisions about the risk and benefits associated with the treatment. Due to its speed the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) has become the algorithm of choice when carrying out Full Threshold automated static perimetry. SITA uses prior distributions of normal and glaucomatous visual field behaviour to estimate threshold sensitivity. As the abnormal model is based on glaucomatous behaviour this algorithm has not been validated for VGB recipients. We aim to assess the clinical utility of the SITA algorithm for accurately mapping VGB attributed field loss. METHODS: The sample comprised one randomly selected eye of 16 patients diagnosed with epilepsy, exposed to VGB therapy. A clinical diagnosis of VGB attributed visual field loss was documented in 44% of the group. The mean age was 39.3 years ± 14.5 years and the mean deviation was -4.76 dB ±4.34 dB. Each patient was examined with the Full Threshold, SITA Standard and SITA Fast algorithm. RESULTS: SITA Standard was on average approximately twice as fast (7.6 minutes) and SITA Fast approximately 3 times as fast (4.7 minutes) as examinations completed using the Full Threshold algorithm (15.8 minutes). In the clinical environment, the visual field outcome with both SITA algorithms was equivalent to visual field examination using the Full Threshold algorithm in terms of visual inspection of the grey scale plots , defect area and defect severity. CONCLUSIONS: Our research shows that both SITA algorithms are able to accurately map visual field loss attributed to VGB. As patients diagnosed with epilepsy are often vulnerable to fatigue, the time saving offered by SITA Fast means that this algorithm has a significant advantage for use with VGB recipients. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2415-14-166) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2014-12-23 /pmc/articles/PMC4391113/ /pubmed/25539569 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2415-14-166 Text en © Conway et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2014 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Conway, Miriam L Hosking, Sarah L Zhu, Haogang Cubbidge, Robert P Does the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) accurately map visual field loss attributed to vigabatrin? |
title | Does the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) accurately map visual field loss attributed to vigabatrin? |
title_full | Does the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) accurately map visual field loss attributed to vigabatrin? |
title_fullStr | Does the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) accurately map visual field loss attributed to vigabatrin? |
title_full_unstemmed | Does the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) accurately map visual field loss attributed to vigabatrin? |
title_short | Does the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) accurately map visual field loss attributed to vigabatrin? |
title_sort | does the swedish interactive threshold algorithm (sita) accurately map visual field loss attributed to vigabatrin? |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4391113/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25539569 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2415-14-166 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT conwaymiriaml doestheswedishinteractivethresholdalgorithmsitaaccuratelymapvisualfieldlossattributedtovigabatrin AT hoskingsarahl doestheswedishinteractivethresholdalgorithmsitaaccuratelymapvisualfieldlossattributedtovigabatrin AT zhuhaogang doestheswedishinteractivethresholdalgorithmsitaaccuratelymapvisualfieldlossattributedtovigabatrin AT cubbidgerobertp doestheswedishinteractivethresholdalgorithmsitaaccuratelymapvisualfieldlossattributedtovigabatrin |