Cargando…
Comparison of treatment recompression tables for neurologic decompression illness in swine model
BACKGROUND: Significant reductions in ambient pressure subject an individual to risk of decompression illness (DCI); with incidence up to 35 per 10,000 dives. In severe cases, the central nervous system is often compromised (>80%), making DCI among the most morbid of diving related injuries. Whil...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9534405/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36197931 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266236 |
_version_ | 1784802533740380160 |
---|---|
author | Johnson, W. Rainey Roney, Nicholas G. Zhou, Hanbing Ciarlone, Geoffrey E. Williams, Brian T. Green, William T. Mahon, Richard T. Dainer, Hugh M. Hart, Brett B. Hall, Aaron A. |
author_facet | Johnson, W. Rainey Roney, Nicholas G. Zhou, Hanbing Ciarlone, Geoffrey E. Williams, Brian T. Green, William T. Mahon, Richard T. Dainer, Hugh M. Hart, Brett B. Hall, Aaron A. |
author_sort | Johnson, W. Rainey |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Significant reductions in ambient pressure subject an individual to risk of decompression illness (DCI); with incidence up to 35 per 10,000 dives. In severe cases, the central nervous system is often compromised (>80%), making DCI among the most morbid of diving related injuries. While hyperbaric specialists suggest initiating recompression therapy with either a Treatment Table 6 (TT6) or 6A (TT6A), the optimal initial recompression treatment for severe DCI is unknown. METHODS: Swine were exposed to an insult dive breathing air at 7.06 ATA (715.35 kPa) for 24 min followed by rapid decompression at a rate of 1.82 ATA/min (184.41 kPa/min). Swine that developed neurologic DCI within 1 hour of surfacing were block randomized to one of four United States Navy Treatment Tables (USN TT): TT6, TT6A-air (21% oxygen, 79% nitrogen), TT6A-nitrox (50% oxygen, 50% nitrogen), and TT6A-heliox (50% oxygen, 50% helium). The primary outcome was the mean number of spinal cord lesions, which was analyzed following cord harvest 24 hours after successful recompression treatment. Secondary outcomes included spinal cord lesion incidence and gross neurologic outcomes based on a pre- and post- modified Tarlov assessment. We compared outcomes among these four groups and between the two treatment profiles (i.e. TT6 and TT6A). RESULTS: One-hundred and forty-one swine underwent the insult dive, with 61 swine meeting inclusion criteria (43%). We found no differences in baseline characteristics among the groups. We found no significant differences in functional neurologic outcomes (p = 0.77 and 0.33), spinal cord lesion incidence (p = 0.09 and 0.07), or spinal cord lesion area (p = 0.51 and 0.17) among the four treatment groups or between the two treatment profiles, respectively. While the trends were not statistically significant, animals treated with TT6 had the lowest rates of functional deficits and the fewest spinal cord lesions. Moreover, across all animals, functional neurologic deficit had strong correlation with lesion area pathology (Logistic Regression, p < 0.01, Somers’ D = 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: TT6 performed as well as the other treatment tables and is the least resource intensive. TT6 is the most appropriate initial treatment for neurologic DCI in swine, among the tables that we compared. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9534405 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-95344052022-10-06 Comparison of treatment recompression tables for neurologic decompression illness in swine model Johnson, W. Rainey Roney, Nicholas G. Zhou, Hanbing Ciarlone, Geoffrey E. Williams, Brian T. Green, William T. Mahon, Richard T. Dainer, Hugh M. Hart, Brett B. Hall, Aaron A. PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Significant reductions in ambient pressure subject an individual to risk of decompression illness (DCI); with incidence up to 35 per 10,000 dives. In severe cases, the central nervous system is often compromised (>80%), making DCI among the most morbid of diving related injuries. While hyperbaric specialists suggest initiating recompression therapy with either a Treatment Table 6 (TT6) or 6A (TT6A), the optimal initial recompression treatment for severe DCI is unknown. METHODS: Swine were exposed to an insult dive breathing air at 7.06 ATA (715.35 kPa) for 24 min followed by rapid decompression at a rate of 1.82 ATA/min (184.41 kPa/min). Swine that developed neurologic DCI within 1 hour of surfacing were block randomized to one of four United States Navy Treatment Tables (USN TT): TT6, TT6A-air (21% oxygen, 79% nitrogen), TT6A-nitrox (50% oxygen, 50% nitrogen), and TT6A-heliox (50% oxygen, 50% helium). The primary outcome was the mean number of spinal cord lesions, which was analyzed following cord harvest 24 hours after successful recompression treatment. Secondary outcomes included spinal cord lesion incidence and gross neurologic outcomes based on a pre- and post- modified Tarlov assessment. We compared outcomes among these four groups and between the two treatment profiles (i.e. TT6 and TT6A). RESULTS: One-hundred and forty-one swine underwent the insult dive, with 61 swine meeting inclusion criteria (43%). We found no differences in baseline characteristics among the groups. We found no significant differences in functional neurologic outcomes (p = 0.77 and 0.33), spinal cord lesion incidence (p = 0.09 and 0.07), or spinal cord lesion area (p = 0.51 and 0.17) among the four treatment groups or between the two treatment profiles, respectively. While the trends were not statistically significant, animals treated with TT6 had the lowest rates of functional deficits and the fewest spinal cord lesions. Moreover, across all animals, functional neurologic deficit had strong correlation with lesion area pathology (Logistic Regression, p < 0.01, Somers’ D = 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: TT6 performed as well as the other treatment tables and is the least resource intensive. TT6 is the most appropriate initial treatment for neurologic DCI in swine, among the tables that we compared. Public Library of Science 2022-10-05 /pmc/articles/PMC9534405/ /pubmed/36197931 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266236 Text en https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) public domain dedication. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Johnson, W. Rainey Roney, Nicholas G. Zhou, Hanbing Ciarlone, Geoffrey E. Williams, Brian T. Green, William T. Mahon, Richard T. Dainer, Hugh M. Hart, Brett B. Hall, Aaron A. Comparison of treatment recompression tables for neurologic decompression illness in swine model |
title | Comparison of treatment recompression tables for neurologic decompression illness in swine model |
title_full | Comparison of treatment recompression tables for neurologic decompression illness in swine model |
title_fullStr | Comparison of treatment recompression tables for neurologic decompression illness in swine model |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of treatment recompression tables for neurologic decompression illness in swine model |
title_short | Comparison of treatment recompression tables for neurologic decompression illness in swine model |
title_sort | comparison of treatment recompression tables for neurologic decompression illness in swine model |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9534405/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36197931 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266236 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT johnsonwrainey comparisonoftreatmentrecompressiontablesforneurologicdecompressionillnessinswinemodel AT roneynicholasg comparisonoftreatmentrecompressiontablesforneurologicdecompressionillnessinswinemodel AT zhouhanbing comparisonoftreatmentrecompressiontablesforneurologicdecompressionillnessinswinemodel AT ciarlonegeoffreye comparisonoftreatmentrecompressiontablesforneurologicdecompressionillnessinswinemodel AT williamsbriant comparisonoftreatmentrecompressiontablesforneurologicdecompressionillnessinswinemodel AT greenwilliamt comparisonoftreatmentrecompressiontablesforneurologicdecompressionillnessinswinemodel AT mahonrichardt comparisonoftreatmentrecompressiontablesforneurologicdecompressionillnessinswinemodel AT dainerhughm comparisonoftreatmentrecompressiontablesforneurologicdecompressionillnessinswinemodel AT hartbrettb comparisonoftreatmentrecompressiontablesforneurologicdecompressionillnessinswinemodel AT hallaarona comparisonoftreatmentrecompressiontablesforneurologicdecompressionillnessinswinemodel |