Article

A pilot study of normobaric oxygen therapy in acute ischemic stroke.

Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass 02114, USA.
Stroke (Impact Factor: 6.02). 04/2005; 36(4):797-802. DOI: 10.1161/01.STR.0000158914.66827.2e
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Therapies that transiently prevent ischemic neuronal death can potentially extend therapeutic time windows for stroke thrombolysis. We conducted a pilot study to investigate the effects of high-flow oxygen in acute ischemic stroke.
We randomized patients with acute stroke (<12 hours) and perfusion-diffusion "mismatch" on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to high-flow oxygen therapy via facemask for 8 hours (n=9) or room air (controls, n=7). Stroke scale scores and MRI scans were obtained at baseline, 4 hours, 24 hours, 1 week, and 3 months. Clinical deficits and MR abnormalities were compared between groups.
Stroke scale scores were similar at baseline, tended to improve at 4 hours (during therapy) and 1 week, and significantly improved at 24 hours in hyperoxia-treated patients. There was no significant difference at 3 months. Mean (+/-SD) relative diffusion MRI lesion volumes were significantly reduced in hyperoxia-treated patients at 4 hours (87.8+/-22% versus 149.1+/-41%; P=0.004) but not subsequent time points. The percentage of MRI voxels improving from baseline "ischemic" to 4-hour "non-ischemic" values tended to be higher in hyperoxia-treated patients. Cerebral blood volume and blood flow within ischemic regions improved with hyperoxia. These "during-therapy" benefits occurred without arterial recanalization. By 24 hours, MRI showed reperfusion and asymptomatic petechial hemorrhages in 50% of hyperoxia-treated patients versus 17% of controls (P=0.6).
High-flow oxygen therapy is associated with a transient improvement of clinical deficits and MRI abnormalities in select patients with acute ischemic stroke. Further studies are warranted to investigate the safety and efficacy of hyperoxia as a stroke therapy.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
61 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Literature on the anesthetic management of endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is limited. Anesthetic management during these procedures is still mostly dependent on individual or institutional preferences. Thus, the Society of Neuroscience in Anesthesiology and Critical Care (SNACC) created a task force to provide expert consensus recommendations on anesthetic management of endovascular treatment of AIS. The task force conducted a systematic literature review (up to August 2012). Because of the limited number of research articles relating to this subject, the task force solicited opinions from experts in this area. The task force created a draft consensus statement based on the available data. Classes of recommendations and levels of evidence were assigned to articles specifically addressing anesthetic management during endovascular treatment of stroke using the standard American Heart Association evidence rating scheme. The draft consensus statement was reviewed by the Task Force, SNACC Executive Committee and representatives of Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery (SNIS) and Neurocritical Care Society (NCS) reaching consensus on the final document. For this consensus statement the anesthetic management of endovascular treatment of AIS was subdivided into 12 topics. Each topic includes a summary of available data followed by recommendations. This consensus statement is intended for use by individuals involved in the care of patients with acute ischemic stroke, such as anesthesiologists, interventional neuroradiologists, neurologists, neurointensivists and neurosurgeons.
    Stroke 08/2014; 45(8):e138-50. · 6.02 Impact Factor
  • Source
    1ra. Ed 01/2009; Editorial Ciencias Médicas., ISBN: 978-959-212-393-9
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: IntroductionThe safety of arterial hyperoxia is under increasing scrutiny. We performed a systematic review of the literature to determine whether any association exists between arterial hyperoxia and mortality in critically ill patient subsets.Methods Medline, Thomson Reuters Web of Science and Scopus databases were searched from inception to June 2014. Observational or interventional studies evaluating the relationship between hyperoxia (defined as a supranormal arterial O2 tension) and mortality in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients were included. Studies primarily involving patients with exacerbations of chronic pulmonary disease, acute lung injury and perioperative administration were excluded. Adjusted odds ratio (OR) of patients exposed versus those non-exposed to hyperoxia were extracted, if available. Alternatively, unadjusted outcome data were recorded. Data on patients, study characteristics and the criteria used for defining hyperoxia exposure were also extracted. Random-effects models were used for quantitative synthesis of the data, with a primary outcome of hospital mortality.ResultsIn total 17 studies (16 observational, 1 prospective before-after) were identified in different patient categories: mechanically ventilated ICU (number of studies (k)¿=¿4, number of participants (n)¿=¿189,143), post-cardiac arrest (k¿=¿6, n¿=¿19,144), stroke (k¿=¿2, n¿=¿5,537), and traumatic brain injury (k¿=¿5, n¿=¿7,488). Different criteria were used to define hyperoxia in terms of PaO2 value (first, highest, worst, mean), time of assessment and pre-determined cut-offs. Data from studies on ICU patients were not pooled because of extreme heterogeneity (Inconsistency (I2) 96.73%). Hyperoxia was associated with increased mortality in post-cardiac arrest patients (OR¿=¿1.42 (1.04 to 1.92) I2 67.73%) stroke (OR¿=¿1.23 (1.06 to 1.43) I2 0%) and traumatic brain injury (OR¿=¿1.41 (1.03 to 1.94) I2 64.54%). However, these results are limited by significant heterogeneity between studies.Conclusions Hyperoxia may be associated with increased mortality in patients with stroke, traumatic brain injury and those resuscitated from cardiac arrest. However, these results are limited by the high heterogeneity of the included studies.
    Critical care (London, England) 12/2014; 18(6):711. · 5.04 Impact Factor