• Carlos D Scheinkestel, Kerry Jones, Paul S Myles, D Jamie Cooper, Ian L Millar, and David V Tuxen.
• Departments of Intensive Care and Hyperbaric Medicine, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. cdsch@connexus.net.au
• Emerg Med Australas. 2004 Apr 1; 16 (2): 151-4.

AbstractThe controversy regarding the role of hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) in the treatment of carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning has been re-ignited following the publication of a further randomized controlled trial by Weaver et al., the results of which appear to conflict with our findings. Comparative analysis suggests that the apparent outcome differences may be secondary to the design, analysis and interpretation of the results of the two studies. Following careful analysis of these two papers and further results from a study by Raphael et al on 385 CO-poisoned patients, we can still find no convincing evidence favouring HBO therapy. Pending further research to determine optimal oxygen therapy for CO-poisoning, current therapy should involve stratifying patients for risk of a poor outcome. This stratification may be aided by the evolving availability of biochemical markers of brain injury and the finding that patients with transient loss of consciousness and poor performance on neuropsychological tests of the supervisory attention system are at higher risk of neuropsychological sequelae. We propose that those patients most at risk be admitted and receive more prolonged normobaric oxygen therapy whilst those with more minor CO-poisoning should be provided with normobaric oxygen of no less than 6 h duration and certainly until sign and symptom free.

6 keywords...

hide…