Using a Compass (CMP, Centervue, Padova, Italy) fundus perimeter, ZEST FAST strategy showed a significant reduction in examination time compared to ZEST, with good agreement in the quantification of perimetric damage.
The aim of this study was to compare the test duration of ZEST (Zippy Estimation by Sequential Testing) strategy with ZEST FAST and to evaluate the test-retest variability of ZEST FAST strategy on patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension.
This was a multicentre retrospective study. We analyzed one eye of 60 subjects, 30 glaucoma patients and 30 patients with ocular hypertension. For each eye we analyzed three visual field examinations performed with CMP 24-2 grid: one test performed with ZEST strategy and two tests performed with ZEST FAST. Mean examination time and mean sensitivity between the two strategies were computed. ZEST FAST test-retest variability was examined.
In the ocular hypertension cohort, test time was 223±29s with ZEST FAST and 362±48s with ZEST (38% reduction, P<0.001). In glaucoma patients, it was respectively 265±62s and 386±78s (31% reduction using ZEST FAST, P<0.001). The difference in mean sensitivity between the two strategies was -0.24±1.30 dB for ocular hypertension and -0.14±1.08 dB for glaucoma. The mean difference in mean sensitivity between the first and the second test with ZEST FAST strategy was 0.2±0.8 dB for patients with ocular hypertension and 0.24±0.96 dB for glaucoma patients.
ZEST FAST thresholding provides similar results to ZEST with a significantly reduced examination time.
Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
