3. Indirect reduction of increased intra-ocular tension brought about by lowering general vascular pressure. Much has been written in regard to the association between increased vascular pressure and increased intra-ocular pressure. It is not my province to analyze observations often contradictory and not infrequently inaccurate. This much seems to be established: First, that at corresponding ages there is usually a higher average blood pressure in glaucomatous subjects than there is in non-glaucomatous subjects; second, that arteriosclerosis and therefore usually increased blood pressure, with all its concomitant conditions, is correctly classified as an exciting cause of glaucoma; and third, that the regulation of this increased blood pressure is part of the advantageous management of increased intra-ocular pressure, although it may be too much to say, as Gilbert has, that blood pressure and intra-ocular pressure rise and fall together. It may be true, as Thomas Henderson says, that the intra-ocular pressure is influenced by changes in the general arterial or general venous pressures, whereby a rise in general arterial pressure induces a proportionate rise in the intra-ocular pressure, but it would seem that future investigations must confirm this statement before it can be entirely accepted, as well as his further statement that the effect of an increased general venous pressure is a direct one, producing millimeter for millimeter a corresponding increase in the intra-ocular pressure.
Now, it goes without saying, if these data are correct, or even only partly correct, that part of the treatment of the increased intra-ocular pressure state must be constitutional in that the vascular pressures should be lowered in order that the beneficial effect of their relationship to the intra-ocular pressure shall be established. It is further a great mistake to drive down a high arterial pressure simply because that exists. In other words, it is often necessary from the general standpoint that a certain amount of plus pressure shall remain if the patient's general well-being is to be maintained. There must always be a differential diagnosis between plus pressure and what may be called over plus pressure. That is to say, a man may be perfectly comfortable and properly need, for example, a pressure of 160 or 165 mm., which is above the physiologic limit, but which is a plus pressure, while some disturbance in his general life may add to that 10, 15 or 20 mm. more of pressure, which is then the over plus amount. This over plus amount may be in association with a rise of intra-ocular pressure, and must be eliminated if the latter is to be controlled by a non-operative procedure, or, indeed, by an operative one.
It is no easy matter to determine the presence of increased venous pressure, although there are tolerably accurate instrumental technics, and yet, as Henderson points out, it is just this increased general venous pressure which is often detrimental. Therefore the perfunctory use of such drugs as nitrite of amyl and the other nitrites may not be in the least indicated when, for example, the venous pressure depends upon inability of the right heart to perform its functions, and the drug needed may, for example, be digitalis. Far better than pressure-reducing drugs like nitrite of amyl, urgently indicated in some instances and for some purposes, is the regulation of life and the restoration to their normality of the metabolic processes, the elimination of the worry which is usually the exciting agent that brings about the over plus pressure, which may have as one of its expressions an acute rise of intra-ocular tension. I believe that in the management of a case of glaucoma, whether it be chronic or chronic with sub-acute exacerbations, the greatest care with the aid of an expert clinician must be exercised to find out exactly what mean pressure of the arterial and venous system best conforms with the patient's general welfare, and I am bitterly opposed, and I think with right, to the sudden reduction of tensions, except in emergencies, without a perfect understanding of the facts I have ventured to indicate. This does not for a moment mean that prior, for example, to operative work it is not necessary to get rid by means of drugs of an over plus tension, for surely the elimination of such an over plus tension may be the means of preventing, for example, an intra-ocular hemorrhage, and in this emergency we must not lose sight of Gilbert's recent investigation, who has found that blood withdrawn to the extent of 8 grams to each kilogram of the body weight always produces lowering of the intra-ocular tension, appearing in six to eight hours and lasting to the next day in simple glaucoma, and in inflammatory glaucoma commencing the day after the venesection and lasting two to three days. It is not necessary for me to point out the value of free purgation and diaphoresis in this respect.
In most instances the successful maintenance of a glaucomatous life, exclusive of operative interference, in addition to sustained myosis, demands the investigation of the patient's metabolism, which must be kept at the normal standard, the removal of the evil effects of auto-infection, as we are wont to call it, and especially the elimination of the cause which is responsible for the over plus tension of the arteries and of the veins. This is best secured by just such regulation of life as has been referred to, aided when necessary by the ordinary drugs which the patient's condition indicate, and the success of all treatments, be they operative or non-operative, is enhanced if such a happy state of affairs can be brought about.
I am firmly convinced that every glaucomatous patient, and I now refer to those who are the subjects of chronic progressive glaucoma, should be carefully studied from the general standpoint by the oculist with the aid of an expert internist, just as I am convinced that the modern expert internist should not study his cases of cardio-vascular disease without the help of the oculist. Perhaps I am going a little far afield, but in justification of my statement I want to quote the opinion of Dr. Hobart Hare, one of America's most expert clinicians, on blood pressure, because it seems to me much harm has been done by the more or less brutal knocking down of blood pressure simply because blood pressure above the normal existed. "Concerning the matter of high blood pressure," writes Hare, "independent of cerebral lesions, the longer I study the matter the more convinced I am that this blood pressure is devised by nature to compensate for fibroid changes in peripheral vessels, in order that tissues which would otherwise be cut off from adequate blood supply may receive plenty of blood, and I consider it one of the most vital points to ascertain whether a pressure is what may be called the patient's pathological norm, that is, the pressure which is required in the face of vascular changes, or whether this pressure is in excess of his pathological norm. If it is in excess, measures directed to bring it to the pathological norm should be instituted, but if the pressure found proves to be the pathological norm it is a bitter mistake to lower it, be the pressure what it may. If it is lowered below the pathological norm, all manner of disturbed cardiac action, etc., may result. There is no more reason for reducing a blood pressure below his pathological norm than there is for reducing it below his physiological norm. The adjustment of a man's blood pressure to his pathological norm often has to be as correctly done as the adjustment of a watch which is losing or gaining time."
I shall not quote Hare's elaborate methods for determining these various points because they do not belong to a paper of this character, but I quote his admirable advice because it emphasizes what I believe to be an essential in the treatment of chronic glaucoma, exclusive of operative work, that is, the intelligent co-operation of the oculist and the internist.
Some such thought was in the mind of Ibershoff, who quotes Sterling and Henderson's views that the rate of secretion depends upon and varies with the difference in the blood pressure and the tension of the eyeball, and that the specific gravity of the secretion increases directly with the blood pressure and inversely with the ocular tension. Should the blood pressure be very high, paracentesis, for example, would apparently not be the proper procedure, and the resulting difference produced between the blood pressure and the eye tension would cause a rapid reformation of fluid with higher specific gravity and higher osmotic coefficient. The proper procedure in these circumstances is first properly to reduce the blood pressure, or what I have, quoting Hare, ventured to call the over plus pressure.
4. The relation of osmosis, lymphagogue activity, absorption of edema, capillary contractility and decreased affinity of ocular colloids for water to the reduction of increased intra-ocular tension. We are all familiar with the attention which was directed some years ago to the statements coming from French clinics that the treatment of glaucoma should include the administration of osmotic substances as adjuvants in the reduction of increased intra-ocular tension. Particularly was this treatment advocated by Cantonnet in the administration of daily doses of 3 grams of chlorid of sodium, preceded, of course, by a careful urinary examination and the estimation of the amount of urine and its contained chlorids. Carefully this dose was increased in proper circumstances to 15 grams per diem, and in Cantonnet's original paper good results were achieved in 12 of the 17 patients so treated. I have myself experimented somewhat, not with the administration of sodium chlorid by the mouth, but with the introduction by the bowel of fairly large quantities of physiologic salt solution in patients with glaucoma whose quantity of urinary secretion was markedly below the normal, and in one or two startling instances, which have been reported, achieved success in the rapid reduction of the intra-ocular tension when by this technic the urine secretion rose to the normal amount. To be sure, myotics were also used, but these myotics were insufficient, totally so in the two instances noted prior to the enteroclysis.
Very interesting are the observations on the subconjunctival injections of various substances, notably the citrate of sodium, because of its power of decreasing the affinity of ocular colloids for water. This method of treating increased intra-ocular tension, introduced, as you know, by Thomas and Fischer, has met with confirmation from a number of sources in spite of the fact that Happe's experimental study failed to confirm Fischer's observations; indeed, he even reports in several instances a rise of tension.