M.bennett at 07:35, 23 January 2020

2020-01-23T07:35:06Z

Gordoben: Imported from Wikispaces

2018-10-11T03:59:32Z

Imported from Wikispaces

New page

==Some evidence that early hyperbaric oxygen may improve recovery after ischaemic stroke==

**Clinical bottom line:'''
{|
| '''1. Early hyperbaric oxygenation was associated with improved recovery score at 12 months after ischaemic stroke but not after six months'''
|-
|}

**Citation/s:'''
 1. Sansone A, Gulotta G, Sparacia B, Alongi A, Savola G. Efect of hyperbaric oxygen therapy on neurologic recovery after focal cerebral ischaemia.British Journal of Anaesthesia 1997;78(Suppl1):73-74.

 '''Lead author's name and fax:''' Sansone G. No contact.

**Three-part Clinical Question:''' For patients within 24 hours of a stroke, does the application of hyperbaric oxygen compared to a sham exposure, lead to improved neurological recovery?

 '''Search Terms:''' Focal cerebral ischaemia, stroke, cerebrovascular accident
**The Study: '''Double-blinded randomised controlled trial with intention-to-treat.

 '''The Study Patients:''' Adult patients presenting within 24 hours of a CT confirmed cerebrovascular event (stroke) due to occlusion of the middle or anterior cerebral artery.

 '''Control group''' (N = 8; 8 analysed): Sham exposure in a chamber without pressure for 66 minutes daily for eight to ten days. Other standard therapy not known.
**Experimental group''' (N = 9; 9 analysed): 100% oxygen breathing at 1.5 to 1.8 ATA for 60 minutes with air breaks for the same total time in chamber as the sham

**The Evidence:'''

{|
| '''Measure''' |||| '''Sham Group''' |||| '''HBOT Group''' || '''Difference''' || '''95% CI'''
|-
|^ || '''Mean''' || '''SD''' || '''Mean''' || '''SD''' ||^ ||^
|-
| '''Neurological Recovery Score at six months (0 (no disability) to 10 (dead)) ''' || 6.1 || 0.7 || 5.3 || 6.1 || 0.80 || -3.84 to 5.44
|-
| '''Neurological Recovery Score at 12 months (0 (no disability) to 10 (dead))''' || 6.4 || 0.7 || 4.2 || 0.6 || 2.20 || 1.53 to 2.87
|-
|}

**Comments:'''
 1. Very small study with a considerable risk of bias. Patients were blinded but it is not clear if the outcome assessor was blinded.

 2. The treated group improved between six months and 12 months after treatment and the reason for this late effect is not clear.

 3. The Neurological Recovery Score is not explained, does not appear to have been validated and is not a commonly used index of recovery after stroke The base values of the recovery score were non-significantly worse in the sham group. It is not clear what the NRS means at presentation, nor the importance of the small difference in scores.

'''Appraised by:''' Mike Bennett m.bennett@unsw.edu.au; Tuesday, 9 October 2018

**Kill or Update By:''' July 2022

[[File:sumhorsa.gif|center]]

=[[Stroke | BACK]]=

Sansone - Revision history

M.bennett at 07:35, 23 January 2020

Gordoben: Imported from Wikispaces