Comparing Five Criteria for Evaluating Glaucomatous Visual Fields.

PURPOSE: No consensus exists on the relative superiority among criteria for evaluating glaucomatous visual field (VF) damage. We compared the sensitivities and specificities of 5 criteria-Glaucoma Hemifield Test (GHT), Hoddap-Anderson-Parrish 2 (HAP2), Foster, United Kingdom Glaucoma Treatment Study (UKGTS), and Low-pressure Glaucoma Treatment Study (LoGTS)-across various levels of functional and structural glaucomatous damage. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. METHODS: This single-center study included patients with suspect or known glaucoma with reliable VF (Humphrey 24-2 Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm) and optical coherence tomography (OCT; Spectralis, Heidelberg Engineering) examinations within a 4-month period. One eye per patient was included. The level of functional and structural damage was defined by mean deviation (MD) and by an OCT score, respectively. We created the OCT score by counting the number of abnormal (MD percentile [P] <1%) global and sectoral averages of optic nerve head MRW, circumpapillary RNFL thickness, and macular GCL thickness. We inferred specificities and sensitivities from positive rates of the criteria in patients with low glaucomatous damage (MD at P ≥ 10% or OCT score = 0) and with higher damage (MD at P < 10% or OCT score > 0), respectively. RESULTS: We included 1230 patients. In patients with low glaucomatous damage, HAP2 and UKGTS had higher positive rates, suggesting lower specificities, whereas GHT, Foster, and LoGTS had lower positive rates, suggesting higher specificities. In patients with higher glaucomatous damage, HAP2 and UKGTS had higher positive rates, indicating higher sensitivities, whereas GHT, Foster, and LoGTS had lower positive rates, indicating lower sensitivities. CONCLUSIONS: No criteria had uniformly superior performance. Selection of criteria should consider the degree of damage anticipated and the desire for either higher sensitivity or specificity.

Six-year follow-up of aortic valve reoperation rates: Carpentier-Edwards Perimount versus St. Jude Medical Trifecta.

BACKGROUND: The Carpentier-Edwards Perimount valves have a proven track record in aortic valve replacement: good durability, hemodynamic performance, rates of survival, and low rates of valve-related complications and prosthesis-patient mismatch. The St. Jude Medical Trifecta is a newer valve that has shown comparable early and midterm outcomes. Studies show reoperation rates of Trifecta are comparable with Perimount valves, with a few recent studies bringing into focus early structural valve deterioration (SVD), and increased midterm SVD in younger patients. Given that midterm data for Trifecta is still sparse, we wanted to confirm the early low reoperation rates of Trifecta persist over time compared with Perimount. METHODS: The Maritime Heart Centre Database was searched for AVR between 2011 and 2016, inclusive. The primary endpoint of the study was all-cause reoperation rate. RESULTS: In total, 711 Perimount and 453 Trifecta implantations were included. The reoperation hazards were determined for age: 0.96 (0.92-0.99; p = .02), female (vs. male): 0.35 (0.08-1.53; p = .16), smoker (vs. nonsmoker): 2.44 (0.85-7.02; p = .1), and Trifecta (vs. Perimount): 2.68 (0.97-7.39; p = .06). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis in subgroups-age <60, age ≥60, male, female, smoker, and nonsmoker-showed Perimount having lower reoperation rates than Trifecta in patients younger than 60 (p = .02) and current smokers (p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: The rates of reoperation of Perimount and Trifecta were comparable, with Trifecta showing higher rates in patients younger than 60 years, and current smokers. Continued diligence and further independent reporting of midterm reoperation and SVD rates of the Trifecta, including detailed echocardiographic follow-up, are needed to confirm these findings.