Toxicological Reviews

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 75–92

Hyperbaric Oxygen for Carbon Monoxide Poisoning

A Systematic Review and Critical Analysis of the Evidence
  • Nicholas A. Buckley
  • Geoffrey K. Isbister
  • Barrie Stokes
  • David N. Juurlink
Review Article

Abstract

Poisoning with carbon monoxide (CO) is an important cause of unintentional and intentional injury worldwide. Hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) enhances CO elimination and has been postulated to reduce the incidence of neurological sequelae. These observations have led some clinicians to use HBO for selected patients with CO poisoning, although there is considerable variability in clinical practice.

This article assesses the effectiveness of HBO compared with normobaric oxygen (NBO) for the prevention of neurological sequelae in patients with acute CO poisoning. The following databases were searched: MEDLINE (1966 to present), EMBASE (1980 to present), and the Controlled Trials Register of the Cochrane Collaboration, supplemented by a manual review of bibliographies of identified articles and discussion with recognised content experts.

All randomised controlled trials involving people acutely poisoned with CO, regardless of severity, were examined. The primary analysis included all trials from which data could be extracted. Sensitivity analysis examined trials with better validity (defined using the validated instrument of Jadad) and those enrolling more severely poisoned patients.

Two reviewers independently extracted from each trial, including information on the number of randomised patients, types of participants, the dose and duration of the intervention, and the prevalence of neurological sequelae at follow-up. A pooled odds ratio (OR) for the presence of neurological symptoms at 1-month follow-up was calculated using a random effects model. Bayesian models were also investigated to illustrate the degree of certainty about clinical effectiveness.

Eight randomised controlled trials were identified. Two had no evaluable data and were excluded. The remaining trials were of varying quality and two have been published only as abstracts. The severity of CO poisoning varied among trials. At 1-month follow-up after treatment, sequelae possibly related to CO poisoning were present in 242 of 761 patients (36.1%) treated with NBO, compared with 259 of 718 patients (31.8%) treated with HBO. Restricting the analysis to the trials with the highest quality scores or those that enrolled all patients regardless of severity did not change the lack of statistical significance in the outcome of the pooled analysis. We found empiric evidence of multiple biases that operated to inflate the benefit of HBO in two positive trials. In contrast, the interpretation of negative trials was hampered by low rates of follow-up, unusual interventions for control patients and inclusion of less severely poisoned patients. Collectively, these limitations may have led negative trials to overlook a real and substantial benefit of HBO (type II error).

There is conflicting evidence regarding the efficacy of HBO treatment for patients with CO poisoning. Methodological shortcomings are evident in all published trials, with empiric evidence of bias in some, particularly those that suggest a benefit of HBO. Bayesian analysis further illustrates the uncertainty about a meaningful clinical benefit. Consequently, firm guidelines regarding the use of HBO for patients with CO poisoning cannot be established. Further research is needed to better define the role of HBO, if any, in the treatment of CO poisoning. Such research should not exclude patients with severe poisoning, have a primary outcome that is clinically meaningful and have oversight from an independent data monitoring and ethics committee.

References

  1. 1.
    Weaver LK. Carbon monoxide poisoning. Crit Care Clin 1999; 15(2): 297–317PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hampson NB. Emergency department visits for carbon monoxide poisoning in the Pacific Northwest. J Emerg Med 1998; 16(5): 695–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Seger D, Welch L. Carbon monoxide controversies: neuropsychologic testing, mechanism of toxicity, and hyperbaric oxygen. Ann Emerg Med 1994; 24(2): 242–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mathieu D, Nolf M, Durocher A, et al. Acute carbon monoxide poisoning: risk of late sequelae and treatment by hyperbaric oxygen. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 1985; 23(4–6): 315–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Norkool DM, Kirkpatrick JN. Treatment of acute carbon monoxide poisoning with hyperbaric oxygen: a review of 115 cases. Ann Emerg Med 1985; 14(12): 1168–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thom SR, Keim LW. Carbon monoxide poisoning: a review epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical findings, and treatment options including hyperbaric oxygen therapy. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 1989; 27(3): 141–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mitton C, Hailey D. Health technology assessment and policy decisions on hyperbaric oxygen treatment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1999; 15(4): 661–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Juurlink DN, Stanbrook MB, McGuigan MA. Hyperbaric oxygen for carbon monoxide poisoning. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000; (2): CD002041Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weaver LK, Hopkins RO, Chan KJ, et al. Hyperbaric oxygen for acute carbon monoxide poisoning. N Engl J Med 2002; 347(14): 1057–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Raphael JC, Chevret S, Driheme A, et al. Managing carbon monoxide poisoning with hyperbaric oxygen. Proceedings of the European Association of Poisons Centres and Clinical Toxicologists (EAPCCT); 2004 Jun 3; Strasbourg, 49–50Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hampson NB, Dunford RG, Ross DE, et al. A prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing two hyperbaric treatment protocols for carbon monoxide poisoning. Undersea Hyperbaric Medicine Society Annual Scientific Meeting; 2004 May 29; SydneyGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Raphael JC, Elkharrat D, Jars GM, et al. Trial of normobaric and hyperbaric oxygen for acute carbon monoxide intoxication. Lancet 1989; II: 414–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Scheinkestel CD, Bailey M, Myles PS, et al. Hyperbaric or normobaric oxygen for acute carbon monoxide poisoning: a randomised controlled clinical trial. Med J Aust 1999; 170(5): 203–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thom SR, Taber RL, Mendiguren II, et al. Delayed neuropsychologic sequelae after carbon monoxide poisoning: prevention by treatment with hyperbaric oxygen. Ann Emerg Med 1995; 25(4): 474–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mathieu D, Wattel F, Mathieu-Nolf M, et al. Randomized prospective study comparing the effect of HBO vs. 12 hours NBO in non-comatose CO-poisoned patients: results of preliminary analysis. Undersea Hyperb Med 1996; 23 Suppl.: 7–8Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Scheinkestel CD, Jones K, Cooper DJ, et al. Interim analysis: controlled clinical trial of hyperbaric oxygen in acute carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning. Undersea Hyperb Med 1996; 23 Suppl.: 7Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thom SR, Taber RL, Mendiguren II, et al. Delayed neuropsychologic sequelae following CO poisoning and the role of treatment with 100% O2 or hyperbaric oxygen: a prospective randomized, clinical study. Undersea Biomed Res 1992; 19 Suppl.: 47Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weaver LK, Hopkins RO, Larson-Lohr V, et al. Double blind, controlled, prospective, randomized clinical trial (RCT) in patients with acute carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning: outcome of patients treated with normobaric oxygen or hyperbaric oxygen (HBO): an interim report. Undersea Hyperb Med 1995; 22 Suppl.: 14Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996; 17(1): 1–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, et al. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995; 273(5): 408–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ducasse JL, Celsis P, Marc-Vergnes JP. Non-comatose patients with acute carbon monoxide poisoning: hyperbaric or normobaric oxygenation? Undersea Hyperb Med 1995; 22(1): 9–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schulz KF. Subverting randomization in controlled trials. JAMA 1995; 274: 1456–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Weaver LK, Hopkins RO, Chan KJ, et al. Carbon Monoxide Research Group, LDS Hospital, Utah in reply to Scheinkestel et al. and Emerson: the role of hyperbaric oxygen in carbon monoxide poisoning. Emerg Med Australas 2004; 16(5–6): 394–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Juurlink D, Buckley N, Stanbrook M, et al. Hyperbaric oxygen for carbon monoxide poisoning. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005; (1): CD002041Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Letzel H. ‘Best-evidence synthesis: an intelligent alternative to meta-analysis’: discussion: a case of ‘either-or’ or ‘as well’. J Clin Epidemiol 1995; 48(1): 19–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hampson NB, Mathieu D, Piantadosi CA, et al. Carbon monoxide poisoning: interpretation of randomized clinical trials and unresolved treatment issues. Undersea Hyperb Med 2001; 28(3): 157–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2001; 134(8): 663–94PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Puffer S, Torgerson D, Watson J. Evidence for risk of bias in cluster randomised trials: review of recent trials published in three general medical journals. BMJ 2003; 327(7418): 785–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Scheinkestel CD, Tuxen DV, Bailey M, et al. Hyperbaric oxygen in carbon monoxide poisoning: authors of study clarify points that they made [letter]. BMJ 2000; 321(7253): 109–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Weaver LK. Hyperbaric oxygen in carbon monoxide poisoning. BMJ 1999; 319(7217): 1083–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Moon RE, DeLong E. Hyperbaric oxygen for carbon monoxide poisoning. Med J Aust 1999; 170(5): 197–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Haahr MT, et al. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 2004; 291(20): 2457–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kaptchuk TJ. Effect of interpretive bias on research evidence. BMJ 2003; 326(7404): 1453–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Juni P, Rutjes AW, Dieppe PA. Are selective COX 2 inhibitors superior to traditional non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs? BMJ 2002; 324(7349): 1287–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Freemantle N. Interpreting the results of secondary endpoints and subgroup analyses in clinical trials: should we lock the crazy aunt in the attic? BMJ 2001; 322: 989–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sleight P. Debate: subgroup analyses in clinical trials: fun to look at — but don’t believe them! Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med 2000; 1(1): 25–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Weaver LK, Hopkins RO, Larson-Lohr V. Hyperbaric oxygen and carbon monoxide poisoning. Ann Emerg Med 1995; 26(3): 390–2PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Weaver LK, Hopkins RO, Larson-Lohr V. Carbon monoxide poisoning: a review of human outcome studies comparing normobaric oxygen with hyperbaric oxygen. Ann Emerg Med 1995; 25(2): 271–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, et al. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the international committee of medical journal editors. JAMA 2004; 292(11): 1363–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicholas A. Buckley
    • 1
  • Geoffrey K. Isbister
    • 2
    • 3
  • Barrie Stokes
    • 3
  • David N. Juurlink
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Clinical Pharmacology and ToxicologyAustralian National University Medical SchoolCanberraAustralia
  2. 2.Emergency DepartmentNewcastle Mater HospitalNewcastleAustralia
  3. 3.Discipline of Clinical PharmacologyUniversity of NewcastleNewcastleAustralia
  4. 4.Departments of Medicine, Pediatrics, and Health Policy, Management, and EvaluationUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  5. 5.Clinical Pharmacology and ToxicologyThe Canberra HospitalWodenAustralia

Personalised recommendations