Glaucoma suspects

Started by JennyW
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

JennyW

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I work two days a week for an opthalmology group. The two doctors there do full glaucoma workups on "glaucoma suspects." (HRT/VFE/PAC/GOINO/PHOTOS) This seems reasonable enough, however they term people with a family history a glaucoma suspect, regardless of the age that the family member developed glaucoma.

So I see a lot of 25 year olds with IOPS of 14, and C/Ds of 0.2, but who's grandmother had glaucoma.

1: What are your thoughts on this?
2: What level of importance do you assign to family history when evaluating POAG patients.
3: What is your experience with the incidence of POAG in the 10-50 year old population? The literature that I have read says it's essentially zero.

Jen
 
Family history is very important, but I usually call people Glaucoma suspects based on optic nerve appearance or IOPs. If it's by family, then I write "glaucoma suspect by family history".

Although the incidence of POAG is low in young patients, it's not a bad idea to do a baseline exam and tests on patients for later comparison. If the C/D is 0.2, then I wouldn't do visual fields/HRT/photos/OCT unless there was a change, increased C/D, IOP spike, or appearance of a disc hemorrhage.
 
Andrew_Doan said:
Family history is very important, but I usually call people Glaucoma suspects based on optic nerve appearance or IOPs. If it's by family, then I write "glaucoma suspect by family history".

Although the incidence of POAG is low in young patients, it's not a bad idea to do a baseline exam and tests on patients for later comparison. If the C/D is 0.2, then I wouldn't do visual fields/HRT/photos/OCT unless there was a change, increased C/D, IOP spike, or appearance of a disc hemorrhage.

That's very reasonable, and very much in line with how I manage patients. I am a fan of photos. I take a lot of them.

But would you call a 25 year old with normal IOPS and C/Ds a "glaucoma suspect" simply because their 85 year old grandmother has it, and was diagnosed when she was 78??

Jenny
 
JennyW said:
But would you call a 25 year old with normal IOPS and C/Ds a "glaucoma suspect" simply because their 85 year old grandmother has it, and was diagnosed when she was 78??

Jenny

No, I wouldn't. Only about 50% of glaucoma patients are currently diagnosed and being treated in this country. There are some pretty smart people from Baltimore that feel that the other 50% are the family members of the people we're treating. This is sound reasoning. When the young family member is sitting in your chair and has a clearly normal exam, however, the workup should probably stop there (for the time being).