Comparison Between 24-2 ZEST and 24-2 ZEST FAST Strategies in Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension Using a Fundus Perimeter

Précis: Using a Compass (CMP) (CMP, Centervue, Padova, Italy) fundus perimeter, Zippy Estimation by Sequential Testing (ZEST) FAST strategy showed a significant reduction in examination time compared with ZEST, with good agreement in the quantification of perimetric damage. Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the test duration of ZEST strategy with ZEST FAST and to evaluate the test-retest variability of ZEST FAST strategy on patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Patients and Methods: This was a multicenter retrospective study. We analyzed 1 eye of 60 subjects: 30 glaucoma patients and 30 patients with ocular hypertension. For each eye we analyzed, 3 visual field examinations were performed with Compass 24-2 grid: 1 test performed with ZEST strategy and 2 tests performed with ZEST FAST. Mean examination time and mean sensitivity between the 2 strategies were computed. ZEST FAST test-retest variability was examined. Results: In the ocular hypertension cohort, test time was 223 ± 29 seconds with ZEST FAST and 362 ± 48 seconds with ZEST (38% reduction, P < 0.001). In glaucoma patients, it was respectively 265 ± 62 and 386 ± 78 seconds (31% reduction using ZEST FAST, P < 0.001). The difference in mean sensitivity between the 2 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. Conclusions: ZEST FAST thresholding provides similar results to ZEST with a significantly reduced examination time.