The Correlations between Recurrent Disc Hemorrhage and Sympathetic Variability, and the Disc Morphology

Yi-Ryeung Park; Hae-Young Lopilly Park; Chan Kee Park

doi:10.3341/jkos.2018.59.2.159

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.59(2) > 1010853

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Park, Park, and Park: The Correlations between Recurrent Disc Hemorrhage and Sympathetic Variability, and the Disc Morphology

Original Article

Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society 2018; 59(2): 159-163.

Published online: 9 February 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2018.59.2.159

The Correlations between Recurrent Disc Hemorrhage and Sympathetic Variability, and the Disc Morphology

Yi-Ryeung Park, MD, Hae-Young Lopilly Park, MD, PhD, Chan Kee Park, MD, PhD

Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.

Address reprint requests to Chan Kee Park, MD, PhD. Department of Ophthalmology, The Catholic University of Korea Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, #222 Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul 06591, Korea. Tel: 82-2-2258-6329, Fax: 82-2-599-7405, ckpark@catholic.ac.kr

Received 28 September 2017 Revised 11 November 2017 Accepted 22 January 2018

The Korean Ophthalmological Society

(open-access):

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the correlations of sympathetic variability and recurrent disc hemorrhage, and the morphology of the optic disc.

Methods

This study included 41 eyes of 41 patients who had at least one disc hemorrhage (DH), who were diagnosed with open-angle glaucoma or suspected glaucoma. All eyes had a DH at presentation and were followed-up for at least 3 years. Eyes were classified by the morphology of the optic disc into the focal rim thinning, concentric cupping, or myopic disc groups. The variability of the sympathetic nervous system was defined by the Standard deviation of all node to node intervals (SDNN) as very low frequency, low frequency (LF), or high frequency, which was the standard parameter of heart rate variabilities.

Results

There were 14 (34.14%) eyes with a single DH, and the remaining eyes with a recurrent DH. Single DH patients tended to have a myopic disc (p < 0.001) and, especially in the lower 50% of the SDNN group, the recurrent DH group had a lower SDNN (p = 0.046), and a higher LF (p = 0.002).

Conclusions

DH recurred when patients had morphological glaucomatous changes, especially focal rim thinning. Differences of the sympathetic variability had a strong correlation with the recurrent DH.

Keywords: Disc hemorrhage, Hear rate variability, Myopia, Sympathetic

Figures and Tables

Table 1

The demographic data of single and recurrent optic disc hemorrhage group

Values are presented as mean ± SD or n (%) unless otherwise indicated.

DH = disc hemorrhage; NTG = normal tension glaucoma; HRV = heart rate variability; HR = hear rate; SDNN = standard deviation of node to node interval; TP = total power; VLF = very low frequency; LF = low frequency; HF = high frequency.

^*Student T test.

Table 2

The morphologic characteristics of optic disc among two groups

Values are presented as n (%) unless otherwise indicated.

DH = disc hemorrhage.

^*Fisher's exact test.

Table 3

Demographic data and hear-rate variability parameters of single, and recurrent disc hemorrhage groups in patients with low SDNN (data shows parameters of lower SDNN 50% group)

Values are presented as mean ± SD or n (%) unless otherwise indicated.

SDNN = standard deviation of NN interval; DH = disc hemorrhage; NTG = normal tension glaucoma; HRV = heart rate variability; HR = hear rate; TP = total power; VLF = very low frequency; LF = low frequency; HF = high frequency.

^*Student T-test.

Notes

^{Conflicts of Interest} The authors have no conflicts to disclose.

References

1. Kim SH, Park KH. Comparison of clinical characteristics and progression of glaucoma between recurrent and non-recurrent optic disc hemorrhage. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2003; 44:2571–2576.

2. Siegner SW, Netland PA. Optic disc hemorrhages and progression of glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1996; 103:1014–1024.

3. Kitazawa Y, Shirato S, Yamamoto T. Optic disc hemorrhage in low -tension glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1986; 93:853–857.

4. Shilab ZM, Lee PF, Hay P. The significance of disc hemorrhage in open angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1982; 89:211–213.

5. Na KS, Lee NY, Park SH, Park CK. Autonomic dysfunction in normal tension glaucoma: the short -term hear rate variability analysis. J Glaucoma. 2010; 19:377–381.

6. Kashiwagi K, Tsumura T, Ishii H, et al. Circadian rhythm of autonomic nervous function in patients with normal-tension glaucoma compared with normal subjects using ambulatory electrocardiography. J Glaucoma. 2000; 9:239–246.

7. Drance SM, Douglas GR, WiJsman K, et al. Response of blood flow to warm and cold in normal and low-tension glaucoma patients. Am J Ophthalmol. 1988; 105:35–39.

8. Ishida K, Yamamoto T, Sugiyama K, Kitazawa Y. Disk hemorrhage is a significantly negative prognostic factor in normal-tension glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000; 129:707–714.

9. Kwon J, Lee J, Choi J, et al. Association between nocturnal blood pressure dips and optic disc hemorrhage in patients with normaltension glaucom. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017; 176:87–101.

10. Lee NY, Jung Y, Han K, Park CK. Fluctuation in systolic blood pressure is a major systemic risk factor for development of primary open-angle glaucoma. Sci Rep. 2017; 7:43734.

11. Lee KM, Lee EJ, Lee SH, Kim TW. Disc haemorrhage associated with an enlarged peripapillary intrachoroidal cavitation in a nonglaucomatous myopic eye: a case report. BMC Ophthalmol. 2015; 15:145.

12. Kim HS, Park KH, Jeoung JW, Park J. Comparison of myopic and nonmyopic disc hemorrhage in primary open-angle glaucoma. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2013; 57:166–171.

TOOLS

Similar articles