Electrical neurostimulation in glaucoma with progressive vision loss

Abstract Background The retrospective study provides real-world evidence for long-term clinical efficacy of electrical optic nerve stimulation (ONS) in glaucoma with progressive vision loss. Methods Seventy glaucoma patients (45 to 86 y) with progressive vision loss despite therapeutic reduction of...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Carl Erb, Sophie Eckert, Pia Gindorf, Martin Köhler, Thomas Köhler, Lukas Neuhann, Thomas Neuhann, Nadja Salzmann, Stefanie Schmickler, Jens Ellrich
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2022-03-01
Series:Bioelectronic Medicine
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s42234-022-00089-9
_version_ 1819025977407176704
author Carl Erb
Sophie Eckert
Pia Gindorf
Martin Köhler
Thomas Köhler
Lukas Neuhann
Thomas Neuhann
Nadja Salzmann
Stefanie Schmickler
Jens Ellrich
author_facet Carl Erb
Sophie Eckert
Pia Gindorf
Martin Köhler
Thomas Köhler
Lukas Neuhann
Thomas Neuhann
Nadja Salzmann
Stefanie Schmickler
Jens Ellrich
author_sort Carl Erb
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Background The retrospective study provides real-world evidence for long-term clinical efficacy of electrical optic nerve stimulation (ONS) in glaucoma with progressive vision loss. Methods Seventy glaucoma patients (45 to 86 y) with progressive vision loss despite therapeutic reduction of intraocular pressure (IOP) underwent electrical ONS. Closed eyes were separately stimulated by bipolar rectangular pulses with stimulus intensities up to 1.2 mA sufficient to provoke phosphenes. Ten daily stimulation sessions within 2 weeks lasted about 80 min each. Right before ONS at baseline (PRE), vision loss was documented by static threshold perimetry and compared to the same assessment approximately 1 year afterwards (POST). Mean defect (MD) was defined as primary outcome parameter. Perimetries with a reliability factor (RF) of max. 20% were considered. Results Perimetry follow-up of 101 eyes in 70 patients fulfilled the criterion of a max. 20% RF. Follow-up was performed on average 362.2 days after ONS. MD significantly decreased from PRE 14.0 dB (median) to POST 13.4 dB (p < 0.01). 64 eyes in 49 patients showed constant or reduced MD as compared to baseline (PRE 13.4 dB vs. POST 11.2 dB). In 37 eyes of 30 patients, MD increased from PRE 14.9 dB to POST 15.6 dB. Conclusions Innovative treatments that preserve visual function through mechanisms other than lowering IOP are required for glaucoma with progressive vision loss. The present long-term data document progression halt in more than 63% of affected eyes after ONS and, thus, extend existing evidence from clinical trials.
first_indexed 2024-12-21T05:19:15Z
format Article
id doaj.art-69e163a67e7547eda461137d1912d51d
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2332-8886
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-21T05:19:15Z
publishDate 2022-03-01
publisher BMC
record_format Article
series Bioelectronic Medicine
spelling doaj.art-69e163a67e7547eda461137d1912d51d2022-12-21T19:14:51ZengBMCBioelectronic Medicine2332-88862022-03-018111110.1186/s42234-022-00089-9Electrical neurostimulation in glaucoma with progressive vision lossCarl Erb0Sophie Eckert1Pia Gindorf2Martin Köhler3Thomas Köhler4Lukas Neuhann5Thomas Neuhann6Nadja Salzmann7Stefanie Schmickler8Jens Ellrich9Augenklinik WittenbergplatzMedizentrum EckertAugenklinik WittenbergplatzGemeinschaftspraxis Salzmann/KöhlerGemeinschaftspraxis Salzmann/KöhlerMVZ Prof. Neuhann GmbHMVZ Prof. Neuhann GmbHGemeinschaftspraxis Salzmann/KöhlerAugen-Zentrum-NordwestMedical Faculty, Friedrich-Alexander-UniversityAbstract Background The retrospective study provides real-world evidence for long-term clinical efficacy of electrical optic nerve stimulation (ONS) in glaucoma with progressive vision loss. Methods Seventy glaucoma patients (45 to 86 y) with progressive vision loss despite therapeutic reduction of intraocular pressure (IOP) underwent electrical ONS. Closed eyes were separately stimulated by bipolar rectangular pulses with stimulus intensities up to 1.2 mA sufficient to provoke phosphenes. Ten daily stimulation sessions within 2 weeks lasted about 80 min each. Right before ONS at baseline (PRE), vision loss was documented by static threshold perimetry and compared to the same assessment approximately 1 year afterwards (POST). Mean defect (MD) was defined as primary outcome parameter. Perimetries with a reliability factor (RF) of max. 20% were considered. Results Perimetry follow-up of 101 eyes in 70 patients fulfilled the criterion of a max. 20% RF. Follow-up was performed on average 362.2 days after ONS. MD significantly decreased from PRE 14.0 dB (median) to POST 13.4 dB (p < 0.01). 64 eyes in 49 patients showed constant or reduced MD as compared to baseline (PRE 13.4 dB vs. POST 11.2 dB). In 37 eyes of 30 patients, MD increased from PRE 14.9 dB to POST 15.6 dB. Conclusions Innovative treatments that preserve visual function through mechanisms other than lowering IOP are required for glaucoma with progressive vision loss. The present long-term data document progression halt in more than 63% of affected eyes after ONS and, thus, extend existing evidence from clinical trials.https://doi.org/10.1186/s42234-022-00089-9NeuromodulationNeuroprotectionOptic nervePerimetryRestoration
spellingShingle Carl Erb
Sophie Eckert
Pia Gindorf
Martin Köhler
Thomas Köhler
Lukas Neuhann
Thomas Neuhann
Nadja Salzmann
Stefanie Schmickler
Jens Ellrich
Electrical neurostimulation in glaucoma with progressive vision loss
Bioelectronic Medicine
Neuromodulation
Neuroprotection
Optic nerve
Perimetry
Restoration
title Electrical neurostimulation in glaucoma with progressive vision loss
title_full Electrical neurostimulation in glaucoma with progressive vision loss
title_fullStr Electrical neurostimulation in glaucoma with progressive vision loss
title_full_unstemmed Electrical neurostimulation in glaucoma with progressive vision loss
title_short Electrical neurostimulation in glaucoma with progressive vision loss
title_sort electrical neurostimulation in glaucoma with progressive vision loss
topic Neuromodulation
Neuroprotection
Optic nerve
Perimetry
Restoration
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s42234-022-00089-9
work_keys_str_mv AT carlerb electricalneurostimulationinglaucomawithprogressivevisionloss
AT sophieeckert electricalneurostimulationinglaucomawithprogressivevisionloss
AT piagindorf electricalneurostimulationinglaucomawithprogressivevisionloss
AT martinkohler electricalneurostimulationinglaucomawithprogressivevisionloss
AT thomaskohler electricalneurostimulationinglaucomawithprogressivevisionloss
AT lukasneuhann electricalneurostimulationinglaucomawithprogressivevisionloss
AT thomasneuhann electricalneurostimulationinglaucomawithprogressivevisionloss
AT nadjasalzmann electricalneurostimulationinglaucomawithprogressivevisionloss
AT stefanieschmickler electricalneurostimulationinglaucomawithprogressivevisionloss
AT jensellrich electricalneurostimulationinglaucomawithprogressivevisionloss