Objective: To identify factors associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes after cyclodestructive or drainage device procedures.
Design: Retrospective, cohort analysis.
Participants: A total of 5570 Medicare patients who were older than 65 years of age and who underwent cyclodestructive or drainage device procedures in 1994 participated.
Intervention: The authors identified cyclodestructive and drainage device procedures from claims to the Health Care Finance Administration (HCFA) by International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9) procedure codes, Current Procedural Terminology procedure codes, and HCFA Common Procedural Classification System codes. The authors analyzed adverse outcome rates using hierarchical logistic regression. Race, age group, gender, length of observed follow-up, state in which surgery took place, ocular procedures performed before and at the same time as the index surgery, and ocular diagnosis were included as covariates in the model.
Main outcome measures: The authors defined an adverse outcome as the occurrence after the index surgery of at least one of the following: repeat cyclodestructive or drainage device procedure, retinal hole-tear repair, retinal detachment repair, surgery for endophthalmitis, vitrectomy, enucleation, evisceration, surgery for ocular hypotony, and/or extrusion or revision of drainage device. Adverse outcomes were also defined without the inclusion of repeat cyclodestructive or drainage device procedures.
Results: When repeat cyclodestructive or drainage device procedures were not included in the definition of an adverse outcome, eyes with a drainage device procedure were 3.8 times more likely to have an adverse outcome than eyes with a cyclodestructive procedure (odds ratio [OR], 3.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.07, 4.67). Subjects with concurrent corneal transplant had increased odds of an adverse outcome compared to subjects without a concurrent corneal transplant (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.27, 3.15). When the definition of an adverse outcome included repeat cyclodestructive or drainage device procedures, the odds of an adverse outcome were similar for both cyclodestructive and drainage device procedures (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.79, 1.13).
Conclusions: Cyclodestructive procedures need to be repeated more frequently than drainage device procedures. However, if the patient has a drainage device procedure, then that patient is more likely to have other types of adverse ophthalmic events than if he or she had a cyclodestructive procedure. Because the average follow-up of subjects in this study is 5 months (range, 0-12 months), outcomes that might take longer to manifest themselves would be excluded from this study.