What Researchers Did
Researchers ran a small double-blind trial testing whether hyperbaric oxygen therapy could improve recovery in patients who had recently had a specific type of stroke, comparing it with a sham (air) treatment.
What They Found
This double-blind randomized pilot study of 34 stroke patients (17 assigned to hyperbaric oxygen and 17 to sham air treatment) found mixed results across different outcome measures at one year, with only 27 patients (14 in the hyperbaric group, 13 in the sham group) completing the full course of treatment. On one disability scale (the Orgogozo scale), the hyperbaric oxygen group scored significantly better at one year (p less than 0.02), but the change in scores from before to after treatment was not significantly different between the two groups (p less than 0.16). Two other measures, the Rankin scale and the researchers' own 10-point scale, showed no significant improvement in the hyperbaric oxygen group at six months or one year (p less than 0.78 and p less than 0.50, respectively). In the sham group, 4 patients worsened neurologically in the first week and 3 of these died, a decline the researchers linked to the stroke itself rather than the treatment; in the hyperbaric oxygen group, treatment was stopped early for 3 patients due to a heart attack, a stroke-related worsening, and claustrophobia.
Canadian Relevance
No direct Canadian connection identified.
Study Limitations
This was a small pilot study of only 34 randomized patients, with just 27 completing the full course of treatment, and the authors themselves state that this small sample size prevents drawing firm conclusions about the therapy's safety or effectiveness.