Cekin

Revision as of 21:56, 16 June 2018 by Gordoben (talk | contribs) (Imported from Wikispaces)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

No evidence of benefit with hyperbaric oxygen therapy for sudden hearing loss.

    • Bottom line
  1. Statistically non-significant small benefit for those treated with HBOT.
    • Citations

Çekin E, Cincik H, Ulubil SA, Gungor A. Effectiveness of hyperbaric oxygen therapy in management of sudden hearing loss. The journal of laryngology and otology 2009; 123: 609-12.

    • Three-part clinical question

For patients with sudden hearing loss within 3 days of onset, does the application of hyperbaric oxygen combined with systemic corticosteroid therapy, compared to corticosteroid therapy alone, improve hearing recovery.

    • Search Terms

Sudden Hearing Loss, Inner Ear

    • The study

Non-blinded randomised controlled trial. Intention to treat not stated.

    • The study patients

Males and females aged 18-82 with sudden onset hearing loss either or both ears, within 3 days. Hearing loss defined as loss of at least 30dB in three frequencies within three days of enrolment. EXPERIMENTAL GROUP (n=36), 100% oxygen at 2.5 ATA for 90 minutes, 10 daily sessions over 10 days plus prednisolone 1mg/kg starting dose reducing over three weeks plus famotidine 40mg daily. CONTROL GROUP (n=21) Drugs as above but no HBOT.

    • The evidence:
Outcome Time to Outcome Control Group Rate HBOT Group Rate Relative Risk Reduction Absolute Risk Reduction NNT
Improved with treatment* 10 days 0.71 0.83 14% 0.12 8
^ 95% CIs: -13% to 42% -0.11 to 0.35 NNT 3 to INF; NNH 9 to INF

*Complete or ‘moderate’ improvement

    • Comments
  1. Large difference in patient numbers between treatment and control arms is not explained.
  2. Time period of outcome assessment not defined (possibly at 10 days).
  3. Reducing dose of prednisolone regimen not stated.
  4. Average mean audiometry quoted in dB, but how many frequencies affected not described.
  5. Power calculation is inadequately described – no suggestion what effect they were aiming to confirm.
  6. 12 years to collect data at a single centre
  7. Two patients in study group recruited outside the protocol period
  8. Some discrepancy between text and Table II results.
    • Appraised by: D. Smart Monday 1st August 2016

Email : [| dsmart@iinet.net.au]

    • Kill or Update by : June 2020
Sumhorsa.gif

BACK