Juurlink D N, Stanbrook M B, McGuigan M A
Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Sunnybrook Health Science Centre and University of Toronto, Room E 235, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M4N 3M5.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000(2):CD002041. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002041.
Poisoning with carbon monoxide (CO) remains an important cause of accidental and intentional injury worldwide. Several unblinded nonrandomized trials have suggested that the use of hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) prevents the development of neurological sequelae. This has led to the widespread use of HBO in the management of patients with carbon monoxide poisoning.
To assess the effectiveness of hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) compared to normobaric oxygen (NBO) for the prevention of neurologic symptoms in patients with acute carbon monoxide poisoning.
We searched MEDLINE (1966-present), EMBASE (1980-present), and the Controlled Trials Register of the Cochrane Collaboration, supplemented by a manual review of bibliographies of identified articles and discussion with recognized content experts.
All randomized controlled trials involving non pregnant adults acutely poisoned with carbon monoxide, regardless of severity, with adequate or unclear allocation concealment were examined. Trials with a score of 3 out of 5 or higher on the validity instrument of Jadad were included in the primary analysis.
Two reviewers independently extracted from each trial information on the number of randomized patients, types of participants, the dose and duration of the intervention, and the prevalence of neurologic symptoms at follow-up. A pooled odds ratio (OR) for the presence of neurologic symptoms at one month follow-up was calculated using a random effects model.
Six randomized controlled trials were identified. The trials were of varying quality. Three trials employing different doses of NBO and HBO were included in the primary analysis. The severity of CO poisoning was inconsistent between trials. At one month follow-up after treatment, symptoms possibly related to carbon monoxide poisoning were present in 81 of 237 patients (34.2%) treated with HBO, compared with 81 of 218 patients (37.2%) treated with NBO (O.R. for benefit with HBO 0.82; 95% CI 0.41-1.66).
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that unselected use of HBO in the treatment of acute CO poisoning reduces the frequency of neurological symptoms at one month. However, evidence from the available randomized controlled trials is insufficient to provide clear guidelines for practice. Further research is needed to better define the role of HBO, if any, in the treatment of carbon monoxide poisoning. This research question is ideally suited to a multicentre, randomized, double-blind controlled trial.
一氧化碳(CO)中毒仍是全球意外和故意伤害的重要原因。多项非盲法非随机试验表明,高压氧(HBO)的使用可预防神经后遗症的发生。这导致HBO在一氧化碳中毒患者的治疗中广泛应用。
评估高压氧(HBO)与常压氧(NBO)相比,在预防急性一氧化碳中毒患者神经症状方面的有效性。
我们检索了MEDLINE(1966年至今)、EMBASE(1980年至今)以及Cochrane协作网对照试验注册库,并辅以对已识别文章参考文献的人工检索以及与知名内容专家的讨论。
对所有涉及非妊娠成年急性一氧化碳中毒患者的随机对照试验进行审查,无论中毒严重程度如何,分配隐藏充分或不明确的试验均在审查范围内。在Jadad有效性工具上得分为5分制中3分及以上的试验纳入主要分析。
两名审查员独立从每个试验中提取随机分组患者数量、参与者类型、干预剂量和持续时间以及随访时神经症状患病率等信息。使用随机效应模型计算随访1个月时出现神经症状的合并比值比(OR)。
共识别出6项随机对照试验。试验质量参差不齐。主要分析纳入了3项采用不同剂量NBO和HBO的试验。各试验间一氧化碳中毒的严重程度不一致。治疗后随访1个月时,接受HBO治疗的237例患者中有81例(34.2%)出现可能与一氧化碳中毒相关的症状,而接受NBO治疗的218例患者中有81例(37.2%)出现此类症状(HBO治疗有益的OR为0.82;95%CI为0.41 - 1.66)。
没有证据表明在急性一氧化碳中毒治疗中不加选择地使用HBO可降低1个月时神经症状的发生率。然而,现有随机对照试验的证据不足以提供明确的实践指南。需要进一步研究以更好地明确HBO在一氧化碳中毒治疗中的作用(如有)。这个研究问题非常适合进行多中心、随机、双盲对照试验。