Definitions for Keratoconus Progression and Their Impact on Clinical Practice.

PURPOSE

There is currently no consensus on which keratoconus need cross-linking nor on how to establish progression. This study assessed the performance of diverse progression criteria and compared them with our clinical knowledge of keratoconus evolution.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, longitudinal, observational study. Habitual progression criteria, based on (combinations of) keratometry (K MAX ), front astigmatism (A F ), pachymetry (P MIN ), or ABCD progression display, from 906 keratoconus patients were analyzed. For each criterion and cutoff, we calculated %eyes flagged progressive at some point (R PROG ), individual consistency C IND (%examinations after progression detection still considered progressive), and population consistency C POP (% eyes with CIND >66%). Finally, other monotonic and consistent variables, such as front steep keratometry (K 2F ), mean radius of the back surface (R mB ), and the like, were evaluated for the overall sample and subgroups.

RESULTS

Using a single criterion (e.g., ∆K MAX >1D) led to high values of R PROG . When combining two, (K MAX and A F ) led to worse C POP and higher variability than (K MAX and P MIN ); alternative criteria such as (K 2F and R mB ) obtained the best C POP and the lowest variability ( P <0.0001). ABC, as defined by its authors, obtained R PROG of 74.2%. Using wider 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) and requiring two parameters over 95CI reduced R PROG to 27.9%.

CONCLUSION

Previous clinical studies suggest that 20% to 30% of keratoconus cases are progressive. This clinical R PROG value should be considered when defining KC progression to avoid overtreatment. Using combinations of variables or wider margins for ABC brings R PROG closer to these clinical observations while obtaining better population consistency than current definitions.