首页> 外文期刊>Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine: Journal of the Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society >A prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing two hyperbaric treatment protocols for carbon monoxide poisoning.
【24h】

A prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing two hyperbaric treatment protocols for carbon monoxide poisoning.

机译:一个前瞻性随机临床试验比较两个碳高压氧舱治疗协议一氧化碳中毒。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

INTRODUCTION: 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. METHODS: 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 testwas performed immediately after hyperbaric treatment and repeated 14-21 days later. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
机译:简介:最优高压氧(HBO2)治疗急性一氧化碳(CO)的协议中毒是未知的。研究发现18个不同的协议来治疗由北美multiplace CO中毒高压设备。进行评估的可行性随机化患者不同的协议确定是否有大的差异临床结果两者之间存在最常见的协议。意外CO中毒导致短暂的意识丧失,演讲急诊科在12小时内,主语言英语,高中教育,居住在100英里的高压设施被招募。随机一个HBO2治疗2.4与90年大气绝对(atm abs)的压力分钟的100%的氧气呼吸与治疗美国空军有限公司协议(3.0 atm abs最大压力)。高压氧舱治疗后立即执行几天后,重复的程度。到2002年,30例21岁到88岁随机、18治疗2.4 atm abs和123.0 atm abs,平均碳氧血红蛋白水平人口是24.8 + / - 8.8%(+ / -的意思SD)。+ / - 129分钟。治疗组之间。异常的神经认知测试立即高压氧舱治疗后,4的2.4自动取款机abs集团(22%)和2 3.0 atm abs组(17%) (P = 0.71)。显示异常延迟测试(p = 0.75)。随访。随机CO-poisoned患者不同高压氧舱治疗协议。治疗疗效差异协议需要大型多中心试验使用详细的神经认知测试。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号