These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Efficacy of apraclonidine 1% versus pilocarpine 4% for prophylaxis of intraocular pressure spike after argon laser trabeculoplasty.
    Author: Ren J, Shin DH, Chung HS, Birt CM, Glover BK, Juzych MS, Hughes BA, Kim C.
    Journal: Ophthalmology; 1999 Jun; 106(6):1135-9. PubMed ID: 10366082.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: The authors compared the efficacy of apraclonidine 1% versus pilocarpine 4% prophylaxis of post-argon laser trabeculoplasty (ALT) intraocular pressure (IOP) spike. DESIGN: Prospective randomized clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred twenty-eight eyes of 228 patients with primary open-angle glaucoma undergoing ALT were studied. INTERVENTION: Patients were given 1 drop of either apraclonidine 1% (n = 114) or pilocarpine 4% (n = 114) 15 minutes before ALT. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Peri-ALT IOPs and incidences of post-ALT IOP spikes at 5 minutes, 1 hour, and 24 hours were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The two groups were similar in age, race, and medical dependency. Post-ALT mean IOPs at 5 minutes, 1 hour, and 24 hours were significantly lower than pre-ALT mean IOPs in both apraclonidine (P < 0.001) and pilocarpine (P < 0.001) groups. Incidences of IOP spikes greater than 1, 3, and 5 mmHg at 1 hour post-ALT were 21.1%, 14.9%, and 8.8% for the apraclonidine group and 12.3%, 5.3%, and 4.4% for the pilocarpine group (P = 0.076, 0.015, and 0.18 chi-square test). In the apraclonidine prophylaxis group, patients on long-term apraclonidine showed significantly higher incidence of post-ALT IOP spike than the patients without such long-term apraclonidine use (35.7%, 15 of 42 eyes, vs. 12.5%, 9 of 72 eyes; P = 0.003). In addition, peri-ALT pilocarpine prophylaxis tended to be less effective in patients undergoing long-term pilocarpine therapy but without statistical significance (17.4%, 8 of 46 eyes, vs. 9.4%, 6 of 64 eyes; P = 0.17). CONCLUSION: Peri-ALT pilocarpine 4% was at least as effective as, if not more effective than, apraclonidine 1% in post-ALT IOP spike prophylaxis. Peri-ALT apraclonidine prophylaxis was not effective in patients on long-term apraclonidine, and peri-ALT pilocarpine prophylaxis tended to be less effective in patients undergoing long-term pilocarpine therapy. Pilocarpine 4% can be considered as a first-choice drug for post-ALT IOP spike prophylaxis, especially in patients under treatment with apraclonidine.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]