Association of Angle Width With Progression of Normal-Tension Glaucoma: A Minimum 7-Year Follow-up Study

Glaucoma has been dichotomically classified as open or closed angle, and accordingly, distinct therapies have been administered. In this study, the issue of narrow-angle normal-tension glaucoma (NTG), which may be an intermediate-stage or hybrid-stage disease entity, was addressed.

To determine whether anterior chamber (AC) angle width plays any role in NTG progression.

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data at Seoul National University Hospital between January 2004 and December 2009. Fifty-two eyes of narrow-angle NTG and 52 wide-angle NTG eyes matched for age, untreated intraocular pressure, and mean deviation of visual field. Nonindentation gonioscopy was used to grade AC angles: narrow angle was defined as a partially invisible (invisible in ≥90° and <180°) pigmented posterior trabecular meshwork, and wide angle was defined as a fully visible pigmented posterior trabecular meshwork. Data were analyzed in September 2017.

Optic disc/retinal nerve fiber layer defect and visual field progression.

Of the narrow-angle NTG cohort, the mean (SD) age was 49.5 (9.1) years and 15 individuals (28.8%) were women; of the wide-angle NTG cohort, the mean (SD) age was 48.7 (9.5) years and 19 (36.5%) were women. All participants were Korean. Over the course of the mean (SD) 7.6 (0.4)-year follow-up period, 25 of 52 narrow-angle eyes (48.1%) and 13 of 52 wide-angle eyes (25.0%) showed structural progression (odds ratio [OR], 2.78; 95% CI, 1.21-6.37; P = .02). Meanwhile, 21 of 52 narrow-angle eyes (40.3%) and 9 of 52 wide-angle eyes (17.3%) showed functional progression (OR, 3.24; 95% CI, 1.31-8.00; P = .009). The cumulative probability of both structural and functional progression was significantly greater in the narrow-angle than in the wide-angle group (mean [SD] 5-year survival rates, 0.56 [0.07] vs 0.83 [0.05]; P = .006 and 0.60 [0.07] vs 0.87 [0.05]; P = .007, respectively). The baseline diurnal intraocular pressure's SD was approximately 1.38-times greater in the narrow-angle than in the wide-angle group (1.8 [0.6] vs 1.3 [0.3] mm Hg; mean difference, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.72; P < .001). For the follow-up intraocular pressure fluctuation, the narrow-angle group showed an approximately 1.75-times greater SD (2.1 [0.5] vs 1.2 [0.3] mm Hg; mean difference, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.77-1.09; P < .001).

Narrow-angle NTG showed a greater probability of disease progression than did wide-angle NTG. Further studies determining whether augmented or differentiated treatment strategies would be beneficial for patients with narrow-angle NTG are warranted.