Oxygen therapy for acute myocardial infarction

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Cabello,Juan B.
Data de Publicação: 2010
Outros Autores: Burls,Amanda, Emparanza,José I, Bayliss,Sue, Quinn,Tom
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: São Paulo medical journal (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802010000600013
Resumo: BACKGROUND: Oxygen (O2) is widely recommended for patients with myocardial infarction yet a narrative review has suggested it may do more harm than good. Systematic reviews have concluded that there was insufficient evidence to know whether oxygen reduced, increased or had no effect on the heart ischaemia or infarct size. OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence from randomized controlled trials to establish whether routine use of inhaled oxygen in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) improves patient-centered outcomes, in particular pain and death. CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING STUDIES FOR THIS REVIEW: The following bibliographic databases were searched (to the end of February 2010): Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, CINAHL, Lilacs and PASCAL, British Library ZETOC, Web of Science ISI Proceedings. Experts were also contacted to identify any studies. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of people with suspected or proven AMI, less than 24 hours after onset, in which the intervention was inhaled oxygen (at normal pressure) compared to air and regardless of co-therapies provided these were the same in both arms of the trial. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of identified studies to see if they met the inclusion criteria and independently undertook the data extraction. The quality of studies and the risk of bias were assessed according to guidance in the Cochrane Handbook. The primary outcomes were death, pain and complications. The measure of effect used was the relative risk (RR). MAIN RESULTS: Three trials involving 387 patients were included and 14 deaths occurred. The pooled RR of death was 2.88 (95% CI 0.88 to 9.39) in an intention-to-treat analysis and 3.03 (95% CI 0.93 to 9.83) in patients with confirmed AMI. While suggestive of harm, the small number of deaths recorded meant that this could be a chance occurrence. Pain was measured by analgesic use. The pooled RR for the use of analgesics was 0.97 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.20). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no conclusive evidence from randomized controlled trials to support the routine use of inhaled oxygen in patients with acute AMI. A definitive randomized controlled trial is urgently required given the mismatch between trial evidence suggestive of possible harm from routine oxygen use and recommendations for its use in clinical practice guidelines.
id APM-1_a6c0d3813eb9910578672c1d1eac25db
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1516-31802010000600013
network_acronym_str APM-1
network_name_str São Paulo medical journal (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Oxygen therapy for acute myocardial infarctionBACKGROUND: Oxygen (O2) is widely recommended for patients with myocardial infarction yet a narrative review has suggested it may do more harm than good. Systematic reviews have concluded that there was insufficient evidence to know whether oxygen reduced, increased or had no effect on the heart ischaemia or infarct size. OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence from randomized controlled trials to establish whether routine use of inhaled oxygen in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) improves patient-centered outcomes, in particular pain and death. CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING STUDIES FOR THIS REVIEW: The following bibliographic databases were searched (to the end of February 2010): Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, CINAHL, Lilacs and PASCAL, British Library ZETOC, Web of Science ISI Proceedings. Experts were also contacted to identify any studies. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of people with suspected or proven AMI, less than 24 hours after onset, in which the intervention was inhaled oxygen (at normal pressure) compared to air and regardless of co-therapies provided these were the same in both arms of the trial. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of identified studies to see if they met the inclusion criteria and independently undertook the data extraction. The quality of studies and the risk of bias were assessed according to guidance in the Cochrane Handbook. The primary outcomes were death, pain and complications. The measure of effect used was the relative risk (RR). MAIN RESULTS: Three trials involving 387 patients were included and 14 deaths occurred. The pooled RR of death was 2.88 (95% CI 0.88 to 9.39) in an intention-to-treat analysis and 3.03 (95% CI 0.93 to 9.83) in patients with confirmed AMI. While suggestive of harm, the small number of deaths recorded meant that this could be a chance occurrence. Pain was measured by analgesic use. The pooled RR for the use of analgesics was 0.97 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.20). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no conclusive evidence from randomized controlled trials to support the routine use of inhaled oxygen in patients with acute AMI. A definitive randomized controlled trial is urgently required given the mismatch between trial evidence suggestive of possible harm from routine oxygen use and recommendations for its use in clinical practice guidelines.Associação Paulista de Medicina - APM2010-12-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802010000600013Sao Paulo Medical Journal v.128 n.6 2010reponame:São Paulo medical journal (Online)instname:Associação Paulista de Medicinainstacron:APM10.1590/S1516-31802010000600013info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessCabello,Juan B.Burls,AmandaEmparanza,José IBayliss,SueQuinn,Tomeng2011-01-31T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1516-31802010000600013Revistahttp://www.scielo.br/spmjhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phprevistas@apm.org.br1806-94601516-3180opendoar:2011-01-31T00:00São Paulo medical journal (Online) - Associação Paulista de Medicinafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Oxygen therapy for acute myocardial infarction
title Oxygen therapy for acute myocardial infarction
spellingShingle Oxygen therapy for acute myocardial infarction
Cabello,Juan B.
title_short Oxygen therapy for acute myocardial infarction
title_full Oxygen therapy for acute myocardial infarction
title_fullStr Oxygen therapy for acute myocardial infarction
title_full_unstemmed Oxygen therapy for acute myocardial infarction
title_sort Oxygen therapy for acute myocardial infarction
author Cabello,Juan B.
author_facet Cabello,Juan B.
Burls,Amanda
Emparanza,José I
Bayliss,Sue
Quinn,Tom
author_role author
author2 Burls,Amanda
Emparanza,José I
Bayliss,Sue
Quinn,Tom
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Cabello,Juan B.
Burls,Amanda
Emparanza,José I
Bayliss,Sue
Quinn,Tom
description BACKGROUND: Oxygen (O2) is widely recommended for patients with myocardial infarction yet a narrative review has suggested it may do more harm than good. Systematic reviews have concluded that there was insufficient evidence to know whether oxygen reduced, increased or had no effect on the heart ischaemia or infarct size. OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence from randomized controlled trials to establish whether routine use of inhaled oxygen in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) improves patient-centered outcomes, in particular pain and death. CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING STUDIES FOR THIS REVIEW: The following bibliographic databases were searched (to the end of February 2010): Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, CINAHL, Lilacs and PASCAL, British Library ZETOC, Web of Science ISI Proceedings. Experts were also contacted to identify any studies. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of people with suspected or proven AMI, less than 24 hours after onset, in which the intervention was inhaled oxygen (at normal pressure) compared to air and regardless of co-therapies provided these were the same in both arms of the trial. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of identified studies to see if they met the inclusion criteria and independently undertook the data extraction. The quality of studies and the risk of bias were assessed according to guidance in the Cochrane Handbook. The primary outcomes were death, pain and complications. The measure of effect used was the relative risk (RR). MAIN RESULTS: Three trials involving 387 patients were included and 14 deaths occurred. The pooled RR of death was 2.88 (95% CI 0.88 to 9.39) in an intention-to-treat analysis and 3.03 (95% CI 0.93 to 9.83) in patients with confirmed AMI. While suggestive of harm, the small number of deaths recorded meant that this could be a chance occurrence. Pain was measured by analgesic use. The pooled RR for the use of analgesics was 0.97 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.20). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no conclusive evidence from randomized controlled trials to support the routine use of inhaled oxygen in patients with acute AMI. A definitive randomized controlled trial is urgently required given the mismatch between trial evidence suggestive of possible harm from routine oxygen use and recommendations for its use in clinical practice guidelines.
publishDate 2010
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2010-12-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802010000600013
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802010000600013
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/S1516-31802010000600013
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Paulista de Medicina - APM
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Paulista de Medicina - APM
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Sao Paulo Medical Journal v.128 n.6 2010
reponame:São Paulo medical journal (Online)
instname:Associação Paulista de Medicina
instacron:APM
instname_str Associação Paulista de Medicina
instacron_str APM
institution APM
reponame_str São Paulo medical journal (Online)
collection São Paulo medical journal (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv São Paulo medical journal (Online) - Associação Paulista de Medicina
repository.mail.fl_str_mv revistas@apm.org.br
_version_ 1754209262953824256