Ocular Biometric Characteristics of Chinese with History of Acute Angle Closure

Niu, Wei-ran; Dong, Chun-qiong; Zhang, Xi; Feng, Yi-fan; Yuan, Fei

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5835791

Journal of Ophthalmology

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion Conclusions Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments Supplementary Materials References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2018 | Article ID 5835791 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5835791

Ocular Biometric Characteristics of Chinese with History of Acute Angle Closure

Wei-ran Niu,¹Chun-qiong Dong,¹Xi Zhang,¹Yi-fan Feng,¹and Fei Yuan¹

Academic Editor: Usha P. Andley

Received22 Feb 2018

Revised05 Aug 2018

Accepted20 Sept 2018

Published17 Oct 2018

Abstract

Purpose. To investigate the biometric characteristics of Chinese patients with a history of acute angle closure (AAC). Methods. In this clinic-based, retrospective, observational, cross-sectional study, biometric parameters of eyes were acquired from a general population of Chinese adults. The crowding value (defined as lens thickness (LT); central corneal thickness (CCT); anterior chamber depth (ACD)/axial length (AL)) was calculated for each patient. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for AAC. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted, and biometric variables were compared to compile a risk assessment for AAC. Result. This study included 1500 healthy subjects (2624 eyes, mean age of 66.54 ± 15.82 years) and 107 subjects with AAC (202 eyes, mean age of 70.01 ± 11.05 years). Eyes with AAC had thicker lens (), shallower anterior chamber depth (), and shorter axial length () than healthy eyes. Logistic regression analysis and ROC curve analysis indicated that a crowding value above 0.13 was a significant () risk factor for the development of AAC. Conclusions. Biometric parameters were significantly different between the eyes from the AAC group to the normal group. Ocular crowding value might be a new noncontact screening method to assess the risk of AAC in adults.

1. Introduction

Glaucoma is a leading cause of ocular morbidity and blindness worldwide [1]. It is estimated that by 2020, there will be 79.6 million people suffering from glaucoma, of which 26% will have primary angle closure glaucoma (PACG) [2]. Previous studies have stated that PACG is responsible for nearly half the cases of glaucoma-related blindness in the world, and the prevalence of this condition is highest in China [2, 3].

In the Primary Angle Closure Preferred Practice Pattern® (PPP) guidelines (2016), acute angle closure crisis (AACC) is described as a suddenly occluded angle with symptomatic high IOP [4]. Acute angle closure (AAC) can occur rapidly, recur, and cause permanent vision loss or blindness [5–7]. Eyes with optic neuropathy caused by AAC will be diagnosed as primary angle-closure glaucoma. Since approximately half of fellow eyes of acute angle-closure patients can develop AACCs within 5 years, the fellow eye is also at high risk of AAC [4]. Preventive interventions can be effective in the treatment of patients with AAC [8, 9]; managing AACC successfully has been one of the main clinic objectives of PAC and, it is of paramount importance to assess the risk of AAC properly.

Notably, many ways have been used for detecting a closed angle to diagnose primary angle closure disease (PACD) instead of assessing the risk of AAC. For example, gonioscopy examination is the current gold standard for the detection of PACD [10], and is not so suitable for case-finding or large-scale population screening; Van Herick’s method has been used as a substitutive assessment method of gonioscopy [11, 12], screening results of which may vary from one ophthalmologist to another [13].

Knowledge of biometric parameters is essential for understanding the development of ocular growth and AAC pathologies. Some ocular anatomical characteristics such as short axial length and shallow anterior chamber depth have been reported to be major risk factors of AAC [14–18], and in other words, the “small eyes” are at a higher risk of developing AAC. However, the traditional biometric parameters such as anterior chamber depth or lens vault are not strong predictors of ACC [19–21]. We speculate that the crowding condition of the eye would be a more important factor to trigger an AAC, and thus the parameters describing the condition should be more appropriate predictors for AAC.

It remains difficult to investigate the in-depth pathologies of AAC; but there may be a way to assess the risk of it. With identification of high-risk individuals, the development of AAC could be interrupted at the right time. Towards this end, we collected the ocular biometric parameters of Chinese subjects with an AAC history and compared those of AAC eyes to healthy eyes to identify a new method to assess the risk of AAC.

2. Materials and Methods

This retrospective, observational, cross-sectional study was approved by the Department of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China, and conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

2.1. Study Population

Here, 1810 subjects were recruited consecutively between October 2013 and April 2015. The subjects were either outpatients or inpatients in the Department of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. All subjects were over 18 years old and from the ethnic Chinese Han population. Both healthy eyes and those with a history of AAC were selected; both eyes of each patient were included in the study. The healthy group included patients who presented at our clinic for glasses, minor external ocular discomfort, or cataracts with normal angles and optic nerve head. Patients with an AAC history should be clinic silent and intraocular pressures (IOPs) should be maintained in a normal range.

Data from subjects with AAC who were surgically treated for glaucoma or had a laser treatment such as laser peripheral iridotomy (LPI) or were in the acute stage, with a history of ocular surgery, trauma, tumor, and pathologies such as detachment of retina or second glaucoma were excluded. Subjects younger than 18 years were also excluded. Pilocarpine treatment was discontinued at least one day before the examination, and IOP were measured during the examining period.

2.2. Study Design

All subjects underwent a thorough ophthalmic examination, which included slit-lamp biomicroscopy, IOP measurement by applanation tonometry, fundus examination, and measurements of other ocular biometrics. Central corneal thickness (CCT), lens thickness (LT), anterior chamber depth (ACD), and axial length (AL) were measured using a LENSTAR LS 900 (Haag-Streit, Koeniz, Switzerland). The associated measurements were carried out by the same investigator, and the LENSTAR LS 900 measurement procedure has previously been described in detail elsewhere [22].

2.3. Statistical Analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (Windows ver. 20.0; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Basic descriptive statistics were calculated on all data reported as mean value ± standard deviation. Categorical data were compared using the chi-squared test, and numerical data were compared employing one-way ANOVA and Student’s t-test. Numerical data of eyes from one subject were compared using the paired sample t-test. All tests were two-tailed, and values were considered statistically significant at .

Biometric parameters with statistically significant differences between the study group and the control group were used to build a binary conditional logistic regression analysis model to assess the risk of AAC. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted using crowding values (defined in Results) to obtain a suitable cutoff value to separate healthy from eyes at risk of AAC. The best sensitivity/specificity relationship was determined using the cutoff point extrapolated from the area under ROC curves and predicted probabilities.

3. Results

3.1. The Demographic Characteristics of all Subjects

Complete data were available for 107 subjects with an AAC history (202 eyes) and 1500 subjects (2624 eyes) in the control group (Table 1). The IOP of all the subjects were in the normal range from 10.0 to 21.0 mmHg.

3.2. Differences between the Biometric Parameters in the AAC and Control Groups and between Right and Left Eyes

AAC cases were significantly older (70 ± 11 years) than the control group (67 ± 16 years) (). There were statistically more females in the AAC group compared with the control group (), and there were no significant differences in all four biometric parameters between the right and left eyes of the AAC group (Table 2). The CCT, LT, and AL of two groups were significantly different (Table 3).

3.3. Correlation between AAC Biometric Parameters Based on Logistic Regression Analysis

Shallower ACD and shorter AL as well as LT were significantly associated with the prediction of AAC by binary conditional logistic regression analysis, after adjustment for age and sex (Table 4). After adjusting for all other parameters, older age (ORs 1.018; ) was shown to be significantly associated with AAC by conditional logistic regression analysis.

3.4. Crowding Value and Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves

A crowding value was calculated from the following equation which was created based on our results:

ROC curves were then plotted using crowding values to assess the risk of AAC. ROC curve analysis showed that the optimal probability cutoff for the assessment of AAC was a crowding value over 0.13, with the area under the curve being 0.899 ± 0.009 (Figure 1). The corresponding sensitivity and specificity of crowding measurement were 86.6% and 80.6%, respectively. ROC curves using other formulas previously reported in the literature to determine the risk of angle closure were also plotted (Table 5). Results of simple crowding value (calculated as (LT − ACD)/AL) are also listed in Table 5.

(a)

(b)

4. Discussion

The Asian population has a high prevalence of AAC [2, 3, 23, 24]. Although AAC is well-studied, the pathological processes of AAC remains poorly understood. In the present study, we investigate the biometric characteristic of Han Chinese subjects with a history of AAC.

In many studies, only biometric data from one eye, commonly the right eye, were measured [19, 25]. PACD is a bilateral disease. Although 90% of AACs are unilateral, approximately half of fellow eyes of acute angle-closure patients can develop AACCs within 5 years; therefore, the contralateral eye of patients with a monocular AAC would be at high risk for AAC [18, 26, 27]. For this reason, biometric data from contralateral eyes were important for this analysis; accordingly data from both eyes were collected and analyzed.

There was no significant difference between the biometric parameters of the right eye and the left eye for patients in the AAC group, a finding which disagrees with previous study [28]. We presume that there might be two reasons for this contradictory finding. Firstly, the data from patients in the acute stage of AAC were excluded from this study, and data from patients in poor condition who underwent surgery or LPI were also excluded. Removal of these confounding factors led to a more homogenous AAC group.

In the present study, there were more females and older subjects in the AAC group in agreement with previous research [3, 29]. We found that the eyes of the AAC group had a shorter AL, shallower ACD, and thicker LT than normal eyes, consistent with other publications [15,30–32]. There was no difference in CCT between the 2 groups; however, in our opinion, it would be too thin a cornea for eyes with a short AL in AAC group.

Earlier studies failed to identify an eye with AAC simply by the value of ACD [20, 27], LT [20,33–35], AL [21,36–38], and CCT [19, 39]. It was reported that patients with an ACD < 2.55 mm and a LT > 4.66 mm were at higher risk of APAC, with sensitivity of 60% and 67.6% and specificity of 65.3% and 60.5%, respectively [40].

Formulas were used to assess the risk of angle closure such as anterior segment length (ASL: summation of CCT, ACD, and LT) [19], the contribution of individual ocular components to the total axial (ACD/AL, LT/AL, VCD vitreous chamber depth/AL) [41], and the relative lens position (RLP: calculated as (ACD + 1/2LT)/AL) [42].

In the present study, we calculated a crowding value as follows: (LT+CCT-ACD)/AL according to the results of the logistic regression model. All four biometric parameters were shown to play a role in the development of AAC.

All these variables were calculated based on the recorded results of biometric parameters in the present study. The crowding value had the highest AUROC which means it is more sensitive and more specific than all the other variables mentioned in previous studies to assess the risk of AAC [40]. Changes in eyes with age such as an increase in LT make the structure of eyes more crowded, and a record of crowding value may help us to understand the development of ocular growth and AAC pathologies.

The results of our study should be interpreted with some limitations in mind. Firstly, because all patients were of Han Chinese descent and were recruited from the Department of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Hospital, the results of this study may not be applicable to other racial groups and may not be generalizable to the larger population. Secondly, some studies have shown that cortical or nuclear cataracts may also be associated with angle closure [41]. However, the presence of severe cataracts makes measurements of LT and AL difficult, so such patients were excluded. Thirdly, because not all patients should be examined with gonioscopy, PACS eyes without any complaints, special biometric parameters, and medical history might be included in the healthy participants although studies suggest that the majority of patients with PACS will not develop either PAC or PACG [8, 43]. Lastly, we excluded patients who had accepted laser peripheral iridotomy treatment or surgery as this might have led to unnatural biometric differences between the right and left eyes.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, ACC eyes have higher crowding values in terms of biometric parameters. Determination of ocular crowding value using ocular biometric parameters may represent a novel and rapid method to assess the risk of AAC. Future studies with a larger population representing different ethnic groups are needed to test the reliability and repeatability of our findings.

Data Availability

The datasets used to support this study are provided as a supplementary material file which includes the records of the demographic characteristics and biometric parameters of all the subjects.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this paper.

Acknowledgments

We thank for Yuan Yuan-zhi, MD for his suggestions and support. This study was supported by the Youth Foundation of Zhongshan Hospital (Grant no. 2017ZSQN47)

Supplementary Materials

The supplementary material file includes the records of the demographic characteristics and biometric parameters of all the subjects. (Supplementary Materials)

References

B. Thylefors, A. D. Negrel, R. Pararajasegaram, and K. Y. DaGdzie, “Global data on blindness,” Bulletin of the World Health Organization, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 115–121, 1995.
View at: Google Scholar
H. A. Quigley and A. T. Broman, “The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020,” British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 90, no. 3, pp. 262–267, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. J. Foster and G. J. Johnson, “Glaucoma in China: how big is the problem?” British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 85, no. 11, pp. 1277–1282, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. E. Prum Jr., L. W. Herndon Jr., S. E. Moroi et al., “Primary angle closure preferred practice pattern((r)) guidelines,” Ophthalmology, vol. 123, no. 1, pp. P112–P151, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. P. Ang, T. Aung, W. H. Chua, L. W. Yip, and P. T. Chew, “Visual field loss from primary angle-closure glaucoma: a comparative study of symptomatic and asymptomatic disease,” Ophthalmology, vol. 111, no. 9, pp. 1636–1640, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. N. Weinreb, T. Aung, and F. A. Medeiros, “The pathophysiology and treatment of glaucoma: a review,” JAMA, vol. 311, no. 18, pp. 1901–1911, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
American Academy of Ophthalmolog and Preferred Practice Patterns Committee, The Primary Angle Closure Preferred Practice Pattern® Guidelines, Elsevier Inc., New York, NY, USA, 2015, http://www.aao.org/ppp.
R. Thomas, R. George, R. Parikh, J. Muliyil, and A. Jacob, “Five year risk of progression of primary angle closure suspects to primary angle closure: a population based study,” British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 87, no. 4, pp. 450–454, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Thomas and M. J. Walland, “Management algorithms for primary angle closure disease,” Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 282–292, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
M. E. Nongpiur, X. Wei, L. Xu et al., “Lack of association between primary angle-closure glaucoma susceptibility loci and the ocular biometric parameters anterior chamber depth and axial length,” Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, vol. 54, no. 8, pp. 5824–5828, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. W. Chan, X. Li, Y. C. Tham et al., “Glaucoma in Asia: regional prevalence variations and future projections,” British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 78–85, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. B. Park, K. R. Sung, S. Y. Kang, J. W. Jo, K. S. Lee, and M. S. Kook, “Assessment of narrow angles by gonioscopy, Van Herick method and anterior segment optical coherence tomography,” Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 343–350, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Thomas, T. George, A. Braganza, and J. Muliyil, “The flashlight test and van Herick's test are poor predictors for occludable angles,” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 251–256, 1996.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Tomlinson and D. A. Leighton, “Ocular dimensions in the heredity of angle-closure glaucoma,” British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 57, no. 7, pp. 475–486, 1973.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. F. Lowe, “Aetiology of the anatomical basis for primary angle-closure glaucoma. Biometrical comparisons between normal eyes and eyes with primary angle-closure glaucoma,” British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 161–169, 1970.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. E. Nongpiur, L. M. Sakata, D. S. Friedman et al., “Novel association of smaller anterior chamber width with angle closure in Singaporeans,” Ophthalmology, vol. 117, no. 10, pp. 1967–1973, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. E. Nongpiur, M. He, N. Amerasinghe et al., “Lens vault, thickness, and position in Chinese subjects with angle closure,” Ophthalmology, vol. 118, no. 3, pp. 474–479, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Sun, Y. Dai, Y. Chen et al., “Primary angle closure glaucoma: what we know and what we don’t know,” Progress in Retinal and Eye Research, vol. 57, pp. 26–45, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. W. Cheung and P. Cho, “Validity of axial length measurements for monitoring myopic progression in orthokeratology,” Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 1613–1615, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. W. Lan, J. W. Hsieh, and P. T. Hung, “Ocular biometry in acute and chronic angle-closure glaucoma,” Ophthalmologica, vol. 221, no. 6, pp. 388–394, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. H. Sun, K. R. Sung, S. C. Yun et al., “Factors associated with anterior chamber narrowing with age: an optical coherence tomography study,” Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 2607–2610, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. J. Shammas and K. J. Hoffer, “Repeatability and reproducibility of biometry and keratometry measurements using a noncontact optical low-coherence reflectometer and keratometer,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 153, no. 1, pp. 55.e2–61.e2, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Y. Wong, S. C. Loon, and S. M. Saw, “The epidemiology of age related eye diseases in Asia,” British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 90, no. 4, pp. 506–511, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. C. Tham, X. Li, T. Y. Wong, H. A. Quigley, T. Aung, and C. Y. Cheng, “Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Ophthalmology, vol. 121, no. 11, pp. 2081–2090, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Iribarren, I. G. Morgan, V. Nangia, and J. B. Jonas, “Crystalline lens power and refractive error,” Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 543–550, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. K. Seah, P. J. Foster, P. T. Chew et al., “Incidence of acute primary angle-closure glaucoma in Singapore: an island-wide survey,” Archives of Ophthalmology, vol. 115, no. 11, pp. 1436–1440, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. S. Friedman, G. Gazzard, P. Foster et al., “Ultrasonographic biomicroscopy, Scheimpflug photography, and novel provocative tests in contralateral eyes of Chinese patients initially seen with acute angle closure,” Archives of Ophthalmology, vol. 121, no. 5, pp. 633–642, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. R. Lee, K. R. Sung, and S. Han, “Comparison of anterior segment parameters between the acute primary angle closure eye and the fellow eye,” Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 3646–3650, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Thomas, K. Mengersen, A. Thomas, and M. J. Walland, “Understanding the causation of primary angle closure disease using the sufficient component cause model,” Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 522–528, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. George, P. G. Paul, M. Baskaran et al., “Ocular biometry in occludable angles and angle closure glaucoma: a population based survey,” British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 87, no. 4, pp. 399–402, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Marchini, A. Pagliarusco, A. Toscano, R. Tosi, C. Brunelli, and L. Bonomi, “Ultrasound biomicroscopic and conventional ultrasonographic study of ocular dimensions in primary angle-closure glaucoma,” Ophthalmology, vol. 105, no. 11, pp. 2091–2098, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. J. Casson, “Anterior chamber depth and primary angle-closure glaucoma: an evolutionary perspective,” Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 70–77, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Mimiwati and J. Fathilah, “Ocular biometry in the subtypes of primary angle closure glaucoma in University Malaya Medical Centre,” Medical Journal of Malaysia, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 341–349, 2001.
View at: Google Scholar
M. C. Lim, L. S. Lim, G. Gazzard et al., “Lens opacity, thickness, and position in subjects with acute primary angle closure,” Journal of Glaucoma, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 260–263, 2006.
View at: Google Scholar
J. F. Salmon, S. A. Swanevelder, and M. A. Donald, “The dimensions of eyes with chronic angle-closure glaucoma,” Journal of Glaucoma, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 237–243, 1994.
View at: Google Scholar
F. Aptel and P. Denis, “Optical coherence tomography quantitative analysis of iris volume changes after pharmacologic mydriasis,” Ophthalmology, vol. 117, no. 1, pp. 3–10, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Y. Cheung, S. Liu, R. N. Weinreb et al., “Dynamic analysis of iris configuration with anterior segment optical coherence tomography,” Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, vol. 51, no. 8, pp. 4040–4046, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. G. Congdon, Q. Youlin, H. Quigley et al., “Biometry and primary angle-closure glaucoma among Chinese, white, and black populations,” Ophthalmology, vol. 104, no. 9, pp. 1489–1495, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Y. Chang and S. W. Chang, “Corneal biomechanics, optic disc morphology, and macular ganglion cell complex in myopia,” Journal of Glaucoma, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 358–362, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. R. Razeghinejad and M. Banifatemi, “Ocular biometry in angle closure,” Journal of Ophthalmic & Vision Research, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 17–24, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
I. Debert, M. Polati, D. L. Jesus, E. C. Souza, and M. R. Alves, “Biometric relationships of ocular components in esotropic amblyopia,” Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia, vol. 75, no. 1, pp. 38–42, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
R. V. Merula, S. Cronemberger, A. Diniz Filho, and N. Calixto, “New comparative clinical and biometric findings between acute primary angle-closure and glaucomatous eyes with narrow angle,” Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia, vol. 73, no. 6, pp. 511–516, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. T. Wilensky, P. L. Kaufman, D. Frohlichstein et al., “Follow-up of angle-closure glaucoma suspects,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 115, no. 3, pp. 338–346, 1993.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2018 Wei-ran Niu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies