The myopic shift associated with hyperbaric oxygen administration is reduced when using a mask delivery system compared to a hood - a randomised controlled trial

Hyperbaric oxygen treatment in children: experience in 329 patients

Introduction

Paediatric patients, like adults, may undergo hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBOT) in both life-threatening situations and chronic diseases. There are particular challenges associated with managing paediatric patients for HBOT. This paper documents the indications, results, complications, and difficulties that occur during HBOT for a large cohort of paediatric patients and compares them with adult data in the literature. Methods used to reduce these difficulties and complications in children are also discussed.

Methods

This was a 15-year retrospective review of paediatric patients treated with HBOT at two hyperbaric centres. Between January 2006 and June 2021, patients under the age of 18 who received at least one session of HBOT were included.

Results

Three hundred and twenty-nine paediatric patients underwent a total of 3,164 HBOT exposures. Two-hundred and fifty-four patients (77.2%) completed treatment as planned and 218 (66.5%) achieved treatment goals without complications. Two patients treated for carbon monoxide poisoning exhibited neurological sequelae. Amputation was performed in one patient with limb ischaemia. Middle ear barotrauma events occurred in five treatments. No central nervous system oxygen toxicity was recorded during the treatments.

Conclusions

This patient series indicates that HBOT can be safely performed in pediatric patients with low complication rates by taking appropriate precautions. The cooperation of hyperbaric medicine physicians and other physicians related to paediatric healthcare is important in order for more patients to benefit from this treatment. When managing intubated patients an anaesthesiologist may need to participate in the treatment in order to perform necessary interventions.

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for late radiation tissue injury

BACKGROUND

This is the third update of the original Cochrane Review published in July 2005 and updated previously in 2012 and 2016. Cancer is a significant global health issue. Radiotherapy is a treatment modality for many malignancies, and about 50% of people having radiotherapy will be long-term survivors. Some will experience late radiation tissue injury (LRTI), developing months or years following radiotherapy. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) has been suggested as a treatment for LRTI based on the ability to improve the blood supply to these tissues. It is postulated that HBOT may result in both healing of tissues and the prevention of complications following surgery and radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) for treating or preventing late radiation tissue injury (LRTI) compared to regimens that excluded HBOT.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 24 January 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of HBOT versus no HBOT on LRTI prevention or healing.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. survival from time of randomisation to death from any cause; 2. complete or substantial resolution of clinical problem; 3. site-specific outcomes; and 4.

ADVERSE EVENTS

Our secondary outcomes were 5. resolution of pain; 6. improvement in quality of life, function, or both; and 7. site-specific outcomes. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighteen studies contributed to this review (1071 participants) with publications ranging from 1985 to 2022. We added four new studies to this updated review and evidence for the treatment of radiation proctitis, radiation cystitis, and the prevention and treatment of osteoradionecrosis (ORN). HBOT may not prevent death at one year (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.83; I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs, 166 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is some evidence that HBOT may result in complete resolution or provide significant improvement of LRTI (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.89; I2 = 64%; 5 RCTs, 468 participants; low-certainty evidence) and HBOT may result in a large reduction in wound dehiscence following head and neck soft tissue surgery (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.94; I2 = 70%; 2 RCTs, 264 participants; low-certainty evidence). In addition, pain scores in ORN improve slightly after HBOT at 12 months (mean difference (MD) -10.72, 95% CI -18.97 to -2.47; I2 = 40%; 2 RCTs, 157 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Regarding adverse events, HBOT results in a higher risk of a reduction in visual acuity (RR 4.03, 95% CI 1.65 to 9.84; 5 RCTs, 438 participants; high-certainty evidence). There was a risk of ear barotrauma in people receiving HBOT when no sham pressurisation was used for the control group (RR 9.08, 95% CI 2.21 to 37.26; I2 = 0%; 4 RCTs, 357 participants; high-certainty evidence), but no such increase when a sham pressurisation was employed (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.21; I2 = 74%; 2 RCTs, 158 participants; high-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

These small studies suggest that for people with LRTI affecting tissues of the head, neck, bladder and rectum, HBOT may be associated with improved outcomes (low- to moderate-certainty evidence). HBOT may also result in a reduced risk of wound dehiscence and a modest reduction in pain following head and neck irradiation. However, HBOT is unlikely to influence the risk of death in the short term. HBOT also carries a risk of adverse events, including an increased risk of a reduction in visual acuity (usually temporary) and of ear barotrauma on compression. Hence, the application of HBOT to selected participants may be justified. The small number of studies and participants, and the methodological and reporting inadequacies of some of the primary studies included in this review demand a cautious interpretation. More information is required on the subset of disease severity and tissue type affected that is most likely to benefit from this therapy, the time for which we can expect any benefits to persist and the most appropriate oxygen dose. Further research is required to establish the optimum participant selection and timing of any therapy. An economic evaluation should also be undertaken.

Effect of antiplatelet and/or anticoagulation medication on the risk of tympanic barotrauma in hyperbaric oxygen treatment patients, and development of a predictive model

INTRODUCTION

Middle ear barotrauma (MEBt) is a common side effect of hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBOT) and can result in pain, hearing loss, tinnitus and otorrhagia. The use of antiplatelet/anticoagulant drugs is thought to increase the risk and severity of MEBt during HBOT.

METHODS

Single centre, retrospective observational cohort study of all patients treated with HBOT over a 4-year period (between 01 January 2015 to 31 December 2018) looking at the incidence of MEBt and the concurrent use of antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant drugs. MEBt was assessed by direct otoscopy of the tympanic membrane post-HBOT and scored using the modified Teed classification. Multivariate modelling assessed the relationship between antiplatelet and/or anticoagulation drug use, age, sex, and MEBt during HBOT.

RESULTS

There was no evidence that antiplatelet and/or anticoagulation drugs increase the risk of tympanic barotrauma in HBOT patients. The prevalence of MEBt was higher in female patients than in males (χ2 P = 0.004), and increased with age (χ2 P = 0.048). No MEBt was recorded in patients undergoing recompression therapy for decompression sickness or cerebral arterial gas embolism.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective single-centre study, antiplatelet and/or anticoagulation drugs did not affect the risk of MEBt, but both age and sex did, with greater prevalence of MEBt among older patients and females compared with younger patients and males. A predictive model, requiring further validation, may be helpful in assessing the likelihood of MEBt in patients undergoing HBOT.