Search

Oxygen (O2) is widely recommended in international guidelines for treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), but there is uncertainty about its safety and benefits. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to determine whether inhaled O2 in AMI improves pain or the risk of death. Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS and PASCAL were searched from start date to February 2010. Other sources included British Library ZETOC, Web of Science, ISI Proceedings, relevant conferences, expert contacts. Randomised controlled trials of inhaled O2 versus air in patients with suspected or proven AMI of < 24 h onset were included. Two authors independently reviewed studies to confirm inclusion criteria met, and undertook data abstraction. Quality of studies and risk of bias was assessed according to Cochrane Collaboration guidance. Main outcomes were death, pain, and complications. Measure of effect used was the RR. Three trials (n=387 patients) were included. Pooled RR of death on O2 compared to air was 2.88 (95%CI 0.88 to 9.39) on ITT analysis and 3.03 (95%CI 0.93 to 9.83) in confirmed AMI. While suggestive of harm, this could be a chance occurrence. Pain was measured by analgesic use. Pooled RR for the use of analgesics was 0.97 (95%CI 0.78 to 1.20). Evidence for O2 in AMI is sparse, of poor quality and pre-dates advances in reperfusion and trial methods. Evidence is suggestive of harm but lacks power and excess deaths in the O2 group could be due to chance. More research is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: There is growing interest in the safety of oxygen therapy in emergency patients. A Cochrane review of oxygen versus air for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) showed a potentially important, but statistically non-significant, increase in mortality (RR 3.03 (95% CI 0.93 to 9.83)) and concluded a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) was needed. Objective: To explore the feasibility of conducting an RCT of oxygen versus air in AMI, by exploring the beliefs of UK professionals who treat patients with AMI about oxygen's benefits, and to establish a baseline of reported practice by asking about their use of oxygen. Method A cross-sectional online survey of UK emergency department, cardiology and ambulance staff. Result: 524 responses were received. All specialities had over 100 respondents. 98.3% said they always or usually use oxygen. 80% reported having local guidelines that recommended the routine use of oxygen. 55% believed oxygen definitely or probably significantly reduces the risk of death, while only 1.3% reported that they thought 'it may even increase the risk of death.' There were only minor differences across specialities and grades. Conclusion: Widespread belief in the benefit of oxygen in AMI may make it difficult to persuade funders of the importance of this issue and health professionals to participate in enrolling patients into a trial in which oxygen would be withheld from half their patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction There is growing interest in the safety of oxygen therapy in emergency patients. A Cochrane review of oxygen versus air for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) showed a potentially important, but statistically non-significant, increase in mortality (RR 3.03 (95% CI 0.93 to 9.83)) and concluded a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) was needed. Objective To explore the feasibility of conducting an RCT of oxygen versus air in AMI, by exploring the beliefs of UK professionals who treat patients with AMI about oxygen's benefits, and to establish a baseline of reported practice by asking about their use of oxygen. Method A cross-sectional online survey of UK emergency department, cardiology and ambulance staff. Result 524 responses were received. All specialities had over 100 respondents. 98.3% said they always or usually use oxygen. 80% reported having local guidelines that recommended the routine use of oxygen. 55% believed oxygen definitely or probably significantly reduces the risk of death, while only 1.3% reported that they thought ‘it may even increase the risk of death.’ There were only minor differences across specialities and grades. Conclusion Widespread belief in the benefit of oxygen in AMI may make it difficult to persuade funders of the importance of this issue and health professionals to participate in enrolling patients into a trial in which oxygen would be withheld from half their patients. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]