Hampson N B, Dunford R G, Ross D E, Wreford-Brown C E
Center for Hyperbaric Medicine, Virginia Mason Medical Center 1100 Ninth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101, USA.
Undersea Hyperb Med. 2006 Jan-Feb;33(1):27-32.
The optimal hyperbaric oxygen (HBO2) treatment protocol for acute carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning is unknown. This is indicated by one study that found 18 different protocols to treat CO poisoning by North American multiplace hyperbaric facilities. A pilot study was conducted to evaluate the feasibility of randomizing patients to different protocols and to determine whether any large differences in clinical outcome were present between the two most common protocols.
Adult patients with accidental CO poisoning resulting in transient loss of consciousness, presentation to the emergency department within 12 hours, primary language English, high school education, and residence within 100 miles of the hyperbaric facility were recruited. Enrolled patients were randomized to one HBO2 treatment at 2.4 atmospheres absolute (atm abs) pressure with 90 minutes of 100% oxygen breathing vs. treatment by the US Air Force CO protocol (3.0 atm abs maximum pressure). A neurocognitive screening test was performed immediately after hyperbaric treatment and repeated 14-21 days later.
From 1995 to 2002, 30 patients age 21 to 88 years were randomized, 18 to treatment at 2.4 atm abs and 12 to 3.0 atm abs. Average carboxyhemoglobin level for the population was 24.8 +/- 8.8% (mean +/- SD). Delay to hyperbaric treatment averaged 313 +/- 129 minutes. Neither variable was different between treatment groups. Six patients had abnormal neurocognitive testing immediately following hyperbaric treatment, 4 in the 2.4 atm abs group (22%) and 2 in the 3.0 atm abs group (17%) (P=0.71). One patient in each group demonstrated abnormality on delayed testing (p=0.75). One in each group did not return for follow-up.
It is feasible to randomize CO-poisoned patients to different hyperbaric treatment protocols. Determination of differences in efficacy between treatment protocols will require a large multicenter trial with the use of detailed neurocognitive testing.
急性一氧化碳(CO)中毒的最佳高压氧(HBO₂)治疗方案尚不清楚。一项研究表明,北美多家高压氧治疗机构发现了18种不同的治疗CO中毒的方案。进行了一项初步研究,以评估将患者随机分配到不同方案的可行性,并确定两种最常见方案在临床结果上是否存在任何重大差异。
招募因意外CO中毒导致短暂意识丧失、在12小时内就诊于急诊科、母语为英语、具有高中学历且居住在距高压氧治疗机构100英里范围内的成年患者。入选患者被随机分配接受一种HBO₂治疗,即在2.4绝对大气压(atm abs)压力下呼吸90分钟100%氧气,或按照美国空军CO中毒治疗方案(最大压力3.0 atm abs)进行治疗。在高压氧治疗后立即进行神经认知筛查测试,并在14 - 21天后重复进行。
1995年至2002年,30名年龄在21至88岁之间的患者被随机分组,18名接受2.4 atm abs压力的治疗,12名接受3.0 atm abs压力的治疗。总体平均碳氧血红蛋白水平为24.8 +/- 8.8%(平均值 +/- 标准差)。高压氧治疗的延迟时间平均为313 +/- 129分钟。两组之间这两个变量均无差异。6名患者在高压氧治疗后立即进行的神经认知测试异常,2.4 atm abs组有4名(22%),3.0 atm abs组有2名(17%)(P = 0.71)。每组各有1名患者在延迟测试中显示异常(p = 0.75)。每组各有1名患者未返回进行随访。
将CO中毒患者随机分配到不同的高压氧治疗方案是可行的。确定不同治疗方案之间的疗效差异需要进行一项使用详细神经认知测试的大型多中心试验。