高压氧疗法在创伤性脑损伤中的作用:随机对照试验的系统回顾

IF 0.2 Q4 NEUROSCIENCES
S. Raj, S. K. Thanneeru, Sukumar Mondithokha, Pradeep Chouksey, Tariq Janjua, Bharti Singh, L. Moscote-Salazar, Md Yunus, Amit Agrawal
{"title":"高压氧疗法在创伤性脑损伤中的作用:随机对照试验的系统回顾","authors":"S. Raj, S. K. Thanneeru, Sukumar Mondithokha, Pradeep Chouksey, Tariq Janjua, Bharti Singh, L. Moscote-Salazar, Md Yunus, Amit Agrawal","doi":"10.1055/s-0044-1782609","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Background Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a significant public health concern. Standard care involves conservative management and pharmacological and surgical interventions. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) has emerged as a potential treatment for TBI, with varied findings in the literature. Our systematic review aims to comprehensively assess the efficacy and safety of HBOT in TBI management, addressing existing knowledge gaps and providing insights for clinical practice and future research.\n Methods A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, SCOPUS, Central Cochrane Registry of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library), and ScienceDirect databases for the role of HBOT in TBI. We included studies involving randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Quasi-randomized controlled studies, prospective, retrospective observational studies, case series, case reports, letters, editorials, comments, animal studies, and studies from non-English literature were excluded.\n Results After identifying 306 articles, we narrowed it to 8 for qualitative synthesis. The studies were categorized into subgroups: those on patients with an acute history of cerebral injury and those with a history of mild TBI. The combined RCTs involved 651 patients (326 in the first subgroup, 325 in the second). Despite a uniform HBOT session duration of 60 minutes, variations in compression, decompression phases, and pressure used (1.5ATA to 2.5ATA) hindered meta-analysis comparability. Outcome measures differed, complicating comparisons. Overall, HBOT appears beneficial in the first group and less so in the second. Complications are primarily pulmonary, which include dyspnea, cyanosis, hyperoxic pneumonia, and increased fraction of inspired oxygen requirement.\n Conclusion Our study encountered challenges in reaching definitive conclusions due to outcome variability among the included studies. Despite mixed results, HBOT shows potential benefits for acute TBI patients. Conversely, our findings suggest the limited efficacy of HBOT for chronic traumatic brain injury patients. Further research is crucial, particularly exploring diverse HBOT treatment protocols to establish optimal pressure levels and the required number of sessions for effective outcomes","PeriodicalId":43198,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Neurotrauma","volume":"4 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Role of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy in Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials\",\"authors\":\"S. Raj, S. K. Thanneeru, Sukumar Mondithokha, Pradeep Chouksey, Tariq Janjua, Bharti Singh, L. Moscote-Salazar, Md Yunus, Amit Agrawal\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0044-1782609\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Background Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a significant public health concern. Standard care involves conservative management and pharmacological and surgical interventions. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) has emerged as a potential treatment for TBI, with varied findings in the literature. Our systematic review aims to comprehensively assess the efficacy and safety of HBOT in TBI management, addressing existing knowledge gaps and providing insights for clinical practice and future research.\\n Methods A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, SCOPUS, Central Cochrane Registry of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library), and ScienceDirect databases for the role of HBOT in TBI. We included studies involving randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Quasi-randomized controlled studies, prospective, retrospective observational studies, case series, case reports, letters, editorials, comments, animal studies, and studies from non-English literature were excluded.\\n Results After identifying 306 articles, we narrowed it to 8 for qualitative synthesis. The studies were categorized into subgroups: those on patients with an acute history of cerebral injury and those with a history of mild TBI. The combined RCTs involved 651 patients (326 in the first subgroup, 325 in the second). Despite a uniform HBOT session duration of 60 minutes, variations in compression, decompression phases, and pressure used (1.5ATA to 2.5ATA) hindered meta-analysis comparability. Outcome measures differed, complicating comparisons. Overall, HBOT appears beneficial in the first group and less so in the second. Complications are primarily pulmonary, which include dyspnea, cyanosis, hyperoxic pneumonia, and increased fraction of inspired oxygen requirement.\\n Conclusion Our study encountered challenges in reaching definitive conclusions due to outcome variability among the included studies. Despite mixed results, HBOT shows potential benefits for acute TBI patients. Conversely, our findings suggest the limited efficacy of HBOT for chronic traumatic brain injury patients. Further research is crucial, particularly exploring diverse HBOT treatment protocols to establish optimal pressure levels and the required number of sessions for effective outcomes\",\"PeriodicalId\":43198,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Journal of Neurotrauma\",\"volume\":\"4 8\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Journal of Neurotrauma\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1782609\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Neurotrauma","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1782609","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景创伤性脑损伤(TBI)是一个重大的公共卫生问题。标准治疗包括保守治疗、药物和手术干预。高压氧疗法(HBOT)已成为治疗创伤性脑损伤的一种潜在方法,但文献中的研究结果各不相同。我们的系统性综述旨在全面评估高压氧疗法治疗创伤性脑损伤的疗效和安全性,弥补现有的知识空白,为临床实践和未来研究提供启示。方法 针对 HBOT 在创伤性脑损伤中的作用,我们在 PubMed、SCOPUS、Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials(Cochrane 图书馆)和 ScienceDirect 数据库中进行了系统性文献检索。我们纳入了涉及随机对照试验(RCT)的研究。准随机对照研究、前瞻性、回顾性观察研究、系列病例、病例报告、信件、社论、评论、动物实验以及非英语文献中的研究均被排除在外。结果 在确定了 306 篇文章后,我们将范围缩小到 8 篇进行定性综合。这些研究被分为两类:急性脑损伤患者研究和轻度创伤性脑损伤患者研究。合并的 RCT 共涉及 651 名患者(第一组中 326 人,第二组中 325 人)。尽管HBOT疗程时间统一为60分钟,但加压、减压阶段和所用压力(1.5ATA至2.5ATA)的不同阻碍了荟萃分析的可比性。研究结果的衡量标准各不相同,使得比较更加复杂。总体而言,HBOT 似乎对第一组患者有益,而对第二组患者的益处较小。并发症主要是肺部并发症,包括呼吸困难、发绀、高氧性肺炎和吸氧需求量增加。结论 由于纳入研究的结果存在差异,我们的研究在得出明确结论方面遇到了挑战。尽管结果参差不齐,但 HBOT 对急性创伤性脑损伤患者有潜在的益处。相反,我们的研究结果表明,HBOT 对慢性脑损伤患者的疗效有限。进一步的研究至关重要,特别是要探索不同的 HBOT 治疗方案,以确定最佳压力水平和所需疗程次数,从而获得有效的治疗效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Role of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy in Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials
Background Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a significant public health concern. Standard care involves conservative management and pharmacological and surgical interventions. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) has emerged as a potential treatment for TBI, with varied findings in the literature. Our systematic review aims to comprehensively assess the efficacy and safety of HBOT in TBI management, addressing existing knowledge gaps and providing insights for clinical practice and future research. Methods A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, SCOPUS, Central Cochrane Registry of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library), and ScienceDirect databases for the role of HBOT in TBI. We included studies involving randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Quasi-randomized controlled studies, prospective, retrospective observational studies, case series, case reports, letters, editorials, comments, animal studies, and studies from non-English literature were excluded. Results After identifying 306 articles, we narrowed it to 8 for qualitative synthesis. The studies were categorized into subgroups: those on patients with an acute history of cerebral injury and those with a history of mild TBI. The combined RCTs involved 651 patients (326 in the first subgroup, 325 in the second). Despite a uniform HBOT session duration of 60 minutes, variations in compression, decompression phases, and pressure used (1.5ATA to 2.5ATA) hindered meta-analysis comparability. Outcome measures differed, complicating comparisons. Overall, HBOT appears beneficial in the first group and less so in the second. Complications are primarily pulmonary, which include dyspnea, cyanosis, hyperoxic pneumonia, and increased fraction of inspired oxygen requirement. Conclusion Our study encountered challenges in reaching definitive conclusions due to outcome variability among the included studies. Despite mixed results, HBOT shows potential benefits for acute TBI patients. Conversely, our findings suggest the limited efficacy of HBOT for chronic traumatic brain injury patients. Further research is crucial, particularly exploring diverse HBOT treatment protocols to establish optimal pressure levels and the required number of sessions for effective outcomes
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信