• D N Juurlink, N A Buckley, M B Stanbrook, G K Isbister, M Bennett, and M A McGuigan.
• Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences G-106, Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences centre, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M4N 3M5. david.juurlink@ices.on.ca
• Cochrane Db Syst Rev. 2005 Jan 1 (1): CD002041.

BackgroundPoisoning with carbon monoxide (CO) remains an important cause of accidental and intentional injury worldwide. Several unblinded non-randomized 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.ObjectivesTo examine randomized trials of the effectiveness of hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) compared to normobaric oxygen (NBO) for the prevention of neurologic sequelae in patients with acute carbon monoxide poisoning.Search StrategyWe 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.Selection CriteriaAll randomized controlled trials involving non-pregnant adults acutely poisoned with carbon monoxide (regardless of severity), with adequate or unclear allocation concealment.Data Collection And AnalysisTwo 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.Main ResultsSeven randomized controlled trials of varying quality were identified; one was excluded because it did not evaluate clinical outcomes. Of the six remaining trials, two represent incomplete publications (one interim analysis, one abstract). Of these six trials, four found no benefit of HBO for the reduction of neurologic sequelae, while two others did. Although pooled analysis does not suggest a benefit from HBOT (OR for neurological deficits 0.78, 95%CI 0.54 to 1.12, p=0.18), significant methodologic and statistical heterogeneity was apparent among the trials, and this result should be interpreted cautiously. Moreover, design or analysis flaws were evident in all trials. Importantly, the conclusions of one positive trial may have been influenced by failure to adjust for multiple hypothesis testing, while interpretation of the other positive trial is hampered by apparent changes in the primary outcome during the course of the trial.Authors' ConclusionsExisting randomized trials do not establish whether the administration of HBO to patients with carbon monoxide poisoning reduces the incidence of adverse neurologic outcomes. Additional research is needed to better define the role, if any, of HBO in the treatment of patients with carbon monoxide poisoning. This research question is ideally suited to a multi-center randomized controlled trial.

6 keywords...

hide…