BACKGROUND: Patients with glaucoma on topical glaucoma medication are often affected by dry eye symptoms and thus likely to rub or squeeze their eyelids. Here, we telemetrically measure peak intraocular pressure (IOP) during eyelid manoeuvres and eyelid rubbing. METHODS: Eleven patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) previously implanted with a telemetric IOP sensor (Eyemate-IO) were instructed to look straight ahead for 1 min as a baseline measurement. Next, 6 repeats of blinking on instruction with 10 s intervals in between were performed. In addition, 5 repeats of eyelid closure (n=9), eyelid squeezing and eyelid rubbing (n=7) were performed with 15 s intervals in between. IOP was recorded via an external antenna placed around the study eye. Average peak IOP increases from baseline were analysed and tested against zero (no change) with one-sample t-tests. RESULTS: For eyelid rubbing, the average peak ∆ IOP increase (mean±SEM) was 59.1±9.6 mm Hg (p<0.001) from baseline. It was 42.2±5.8 mm Hg (p<0.0001) for eyelid squeezing, 3.8±0.6 mm Hg (n=9, p<0.01) for eyelid closure and 11.6±2.4 mm Hg (p<0.001) for voluntary blinking. No IOP change except for a short irregularity in the ocular pulse was observed during involuntary blinking. CONCLUSION: Eyelid manoeuvres in patients with POAG elicited brief increases in IOP that were particularly large with squeezing and rubbing. Further investigation of the potential implications for glaucoma progression is warranted.

BACKGROUND: Intraocular pressure (IOP) monitoring in glaucoma management is evolving with novel devices. We investigated the reproducibility of 24 hour profiles on two consecutive days and after 30 days of self-measurements via telemetric IOP monitoring. METHODS: Seven primary patients with open-angle glaucoma previously implanted with a telemetric IOP sensor in one eye underwent automatic measurements throughout 24 hours on two consecutive days (day 1 and day 2). Patients wore an antenna adjacent to the study eye connected to a reader device to record IOP every 5 min. Also, self-measurements in six of seven patients were collected for a period of 30 days. Analysis included calculation of hourly averages to correlate time-pairs of day 1 versus day 2 and the self-measurements vers day 2. RESULTS: The number of IOP measurements per patient ranged between 151 and 268 on day 1, 175 and 268 on day 2 and 19 and 1236 during 30 days of self-measurements. IOP time-pairs of automatic measurements on day 1 and day 2 were significantly correlated at the group level (R=0.83, p<0.001) and in four individual patients (1, 2, 6 and 7). IOP time-pairs of self-measurements and day 2 were significantly correlated at the group level (R=0.4, p<0.001) and in four individual patients (2, 5, 6 and 7). CONCLUSIONS: Twenty-four hour automatic measurements of IOP are correlated on consecutive days and, though to a lesser degree, with self-measurements. Therefore a virtual 24-hour IOP curve might be constructed from self-measurements. Both options provide an alternative to frequent in-office IOP measurements.

Purpose

To explore the effect of gaze direction and eyelid closure on intraocular pressure (IOP).

Methods

Eleven patients with primary open-angle glaucoma previously implanted with a telemetric IOP sensor were instructed to view eight equally-spaced fixation targets each at three eccentricities (10°, 20°, and 25°). Nine patients also performed eyelid closure. IOP was recorded via an external antenna placed around the study eye. Differences of mean IOP between consecutive gaze positions were calculated. Furthermore, the effect of eyelid closure on gaze-dependent IOP was assessed.

Results

The maximum IOP increase was observed at 25° superior gaze (mean ± SD: 4.4 ± 4.9 mm Hg) and maximum decrease at 25° inferonasal gaze (-1.6 ± 0.8 mm Hg). There was a significant interaction between gaze direction and eccentricity (P = 0.003). Post-hoc tests confirmed significant decreases inferonasally for all eccentricities (mean ± SEM: 10°: -0.7 ± 0.2, P = 0.007; 20°: -1.1 ± 0.2, P = 0.006; and 25°: -1.6 ± 0.2, P = 0.006). Eight of 11 eyes showed significant IOP differences between superior and inferonasal gaze at 25°. IOP decreased during eyelid closure, which was significantly lower than downgaze at 25° (mean ± SEM: -2.1 ± 0.3 mm Hg vs. -0.7 ± 0.2 mm Hg, P = 0.014).

Conclusions

Our data suggest that IOP varies reproducibly with gaze direction, albeit with patient variability. IOP generally increased in upgaze but decreased in inferonasal gaze and on eyelid closure. Future studies should investigate the patient variability and IOP dynamics.