Efrati

Revision as of 23:28, 16 May 2021 by M.bennett (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Some weak evidence to support the benefit of hyperbaric oxygen in patients more than six months after stroke

Clinical bottom line:
1. There is some limited evidence that HBO improves disability more than six months after stroke

Citation: Efrati S, Fishlev G, Bechor Y et al. Hyperbaric oxygen induces late neuroplasticity in post stroke patients-Randomized prospective trial. PLoS ONE 2013;8 (1): e53716.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053716

Lead author's name and email: Shai Efrati: efratishai@013.net

Three-part Clinical Question:Does hyperbaric oxygen improve disability in post stroke patients?

Search Terms: stroke, neuroplasticity

The Study: Single-blinded randomised controlled trial without intention-to-treat.                                 

'The Study Patients: Adult patients at least six months after stroke and at least one motor deficit.                                                                             'Control group (N = 37; 29 analysed): Usual physiotherapy for 8 weeks, then cross over to hyperbaric oxygen.                                                                   Experimental group (N = 37; 30 analysed): Standard care plus 40 sessions of HBO at 2ATA for 90 minutes daily for 8 weeks.

The Evidence:

Measure

Control Group

HBO Group

Difference

95% CI

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (0= normal, 42=most severe deficit) at 8 weeks

8.3

4.3

5.5

3.6

2.8

0.77 to 4.87

Activity of Daily Living (scale unknown)

17.6

9.5

12.8

7.3

4.7

0.27 to 9.09

Quality of Life (EQ-5D) (scale unknown)

8.6

1.7

7.7

1.3

1.0

0.18 to 1.76

Quality of Life (EQ-VAS) (scale unknown)

5.3

2.3

6.5

1.5

1.3

0.2 to 2.2

 

Comments:

1. The unblinded study design may have contributed to positive bias from patient and staff perception. Chamber confinement is accepted as a powerful placebo.

2.There was no neurologist involved in the trial which seems unusual.

3. Assessment of the clinical benefit of a mean improvement of 2.8 in NIHSS score requires specialist interpretation, but seems unlikely to be a signficant gain.

4. The outcomes are very short term and may not persist.

5. There is patient data missing from each graph in Figure 2.

6. The EQ-VAS mean improvement of 4.9 to 6.5 is extremely small on a scale of 1-100. Probably mis-reported and is actually a scale from 1 to 10.

Appraised by: Alan Bourke and Michael Bennett; Sunday, 11th April 2013 Email: alan.bourke@sesiahs.health.nsw.gov.au

Kill or Update By: July 2022

 

Sumhorsa.gif

BACK