Print E-mail
Past IssueVolume 9 Number 5 October 2007
Acetazolamide-induced Glaucoma


Arun Kumar Narayanaswamy, Meenal Antrolikar, Lingam Vijaya
Medical and Vision Research Foundation, Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai, India

Two patients presented with bilateral flat anterior chamber and high intraocular pressure several hours after uneventful cataract surgery in the fellow eye. The affected eye had undergone uneventful cataract surgery 6 weeks earlier. A single dose of oral acetazolamide 500 mg had been given as a routine preoperative measure prior to each surgery. Bilateral malignant glaucoma was suspected and intravenous mannitol and oral acetazolamide 250 mg 4 times daily were administered, along with topical steroids, β-blockers, and atropine. Ultrasound biomicroscopy showed choroidal effusion in both patients. Acetazolamide was withdrawn and complete resolution of choroidal effusion occurred rapidly. Bilateral secondary angle closure glaucoma can masquerade as bilateral malignant glaucoma and is usually a result of choroidal effusion secondary to an idiosyncratic response to a drug. In these patients, the instigating agent was acetazolamide. A non-invasive treatment approach of drug withdrawal and conservative management is usually effective.

Key words: Acetazolamide, Glaucoma

Asian J Ophthalmol. 2007;9:213-215.

Comments
Respond to this article
Inappropriate Use of the Term "Glaucoma"
Hannah de Guzman
Consultant
Asian Hospital and Medical Center, Muntinlupa, Philippines
2008-03-31 07:14:59
Although the title of your article is nice and concise, it is misleading. Since there is no optic nerve damage involved the term "glaucoma" should not have been used. "Acetazolamide-induced choroidal effusion causing angle closure" would have been a more appropriate title perhaps.
Competing interests : none declared

Author Reply
Dr Arun Kumar Narayanaswamy
Medical and Vision Research Foundation
Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai, India
2008-05-14 09:48:22
Dear Editor,

We appreciate the feedback on our article. The suggested title could be an alternative, but we do differ in the view that the existing title is misleading. We hope the rationale explained below justifies our reasons for the title.

We do agree that the definitions of the glaucomas have evolved recently, and this is essential to standardise the use of the terminology. The recent change in terminology has been accepted mainly to describe ‘primary entities’ and not ‘secondary entities’. Malignant glaucoma is a secondary entity and is accepted terminology. However, there need not be disc damage criteria for the term ‘malignant glaucoma’ to be used. If we go by current definitions all secondary glaucomas without optic disc damage will have to be labelled ‘secondary ocular hypertension’ — this is not yet the norm.

The published report belongs to a unique group of drug-induced secondary glaucoma. On the basis of its secondary nature, the current use of the title is not inappropriate or misleading, unless the terminology norms change for secondary entities and the same are universally accepted.
Competing interests : none declared

Powered by JoomlaCommentCopyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved.Homepage: http://cavo.co.nr/