-
Diving and Hyperbaric Medicine Mar 2017The tenth European Consensus Conference on Hyperbaric Medicine took place in April 2016, attended by a large delegation of experts from Europe and elsewhere. The focus...
Tenth European Consensus Conference on Hyperbaric Medicine: recommendations for accepted and non-accepted clinical indications and practice of hyperbaric oxygen treatment.
The tenth European Consensus Conference on Hyperbaric Medicine took place in April 2016, attended by a large delegation of experts from Europe and elsewhere. The focus of the meeting was the revision of the European Committee on Hyperbaric Medicine (ECHM) list of accepted indications for hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBOT), based on a thorough review of the best available research and evidence-based medicine (EBM). For this scope, the modified GRADE system for evidence analysis, together with the DELPHI system for consensus evaluation, were adopted. The indications for HBOT, including those promulgated by the ECHM previously, were analysed by selected experts, based on an extensive review of the literature and of the available EBM studies. The indications were divided as follows: Type 1, where HBOT is strongly indicated as a primary treatment method, as it is supported by sufficiently strong evidence; Type 2, where HBOT is suggested as it is supported by acceptable levels of evidence; Type 3, where HBOT can be considered as a possible/optional measure, but it is not yet supported by sufficiently strong evidence. For each type, three levels of evidence were considered: A, when the number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is considered sufficient; B, when there are some RCTs in favour of the indication and there is ample expert consensus; C, when the conditions do not allow for proper RCTs but there is ample and international expert consensus. For the first time, the conference also issued 'negative' recommendations for those conditions where there is Type 1 evidence that HBOT is not indicated. The conference also gave consensus-agreed recommendations for the standard of practice of HBOT.
Topics: Bacterial Infections; Biomedical Research; Brain Injuries; Burns; Carbon Monoxide Poisoning; Crush Injuries; Decompression Sickness; Embolism, Air; Europe; Evidence-Based Medicine; Femur Head Necrosis; Fractures, Open; Hearing Loss, Sudden; Humans; Hyperbaric Oxygenation; Osteomyelitis; Radiation Injuries; Skin Transplantation; Wound Healing
PubMed: 28357821
DOI: 10.28920/dhm47.1.24-32 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2021High-flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) deliver high flows of blended humidified air and oxygen via wide-bore nasal cannulae and may be useful in providing respiratory support... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
High-flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) deliver high flows of blended humidified air and oxygen via wide-bore nasal cannulae and may be useful in providing respiratory support for adults experiencing acute respiratory failure, or at risk of acute respiratory failure, in the intensive care unit (ICU). This is an update of an earlier version of the review.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of HFNC compared to standard oxygen therapy, or non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV), for respiratory support in adults in the ICU.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Register (17 April 2020), clinical trial registers (6 April 2020) and conducted forward and backward citation searches.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled studies (RCTs) with a parallel-group or cross-over design comparing HFNC use versus other types of non-invasive respiratory support (standard oxygen therapy via nasal cannulae or mask; or NIV or NIPPV which included continuous positive airway pressure and bilevel positive airway pressure) in adults admitted to the ICU.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 31 studies (22 parallel-group and nine cross-over designs) with 5136 participants; this update included 20 new studies. Twenty-one studies compared HFNC with standard oxygen therapy, and 13 compared HFNC with NIV or NIPPV; three studies included both comparisons. We found 51 ongoing studies (estimated 12,807 participants), and 19 studies awaiting classification for which we could not ascertain study eligibility information. In 18 studies, treatment was initiated after extubation. In the remaining studies, participants were not previously mechanically ventilated. HFNC versus standard oxygen therapy HFNC may lead to less treatment failure as indicated by escalation to alternative types of oxygen therapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 0.86; 15 studies, 3044 participants; low-certainty evidence). HFNC probably makes little or no difference in mortality when compared with standard oxygen therapy (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.11; 11 studies, 2673 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). HFNC probably results in little or no difference to cases of pneumonia (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.09; 4 studies, 1057 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and we were uncertain of its effect on nasal mucosa or skin trauma (RR 3.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 31.48; 2 studies, 617 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found low-certainty evidence that HFNC may make little or no difference to the length of ICU stay according to the type of respiratory support used (MD 0.12 days, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.27; 7 studies, 1014 participants). We are uncertain whether HFNC made any difference to the ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO/FiO) within 24 hours of treatment (MD 10.34 mmHg, 95% CI -17.31 to 38; 5 studies, 600 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether HFNC made any difference to short-term comfort (MD 0.31, 95% CI -0.60 to 1.22; 4 studies, 662 participants, very low-certainty evidence), or to long-term comfort (MD 0.59, 95% CI -2.29 to 3.47; 2 studies, 445 participants, very low-certainty evidence). HFNC versus NIV or NIPPV We found no evidence of a difference between groups in treatment failure when HFNC were used post-extubation or without prior use of mechanical ventilation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.22; 5 studies, 1758 participants; low-certainty evidence), or in-hospital mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.31; 5 studies, 1758 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of using HFNC on incidence of pneumonia (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.52; 3 studies, 1750 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and HFNC may result in little or no difference to barotrauma (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.14; 1 study, 830 participants; low-certainty evidence). HFNC may make little or no difference to the length of ICU stay (MD -0.72 days, 95% CI -2.85 to 1.42; 2 studies, 246 participants; low-certainty evidence). The ratio of PaO/FiO may be lower up to 24 hours with HFNC use (MD -58.10 mmHg, 95% CI -71.68 to -44.51; 3 studies, 1086 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether HFNC improved short-term comfort when measured using comfort scores (MD 1.33, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.92; 2 studies, 258 participants) and responses to questionnaires (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.53; 1 study, 168 participants); evidence for short-term comfort was very low certainty. No studies reported on nasal mucosa or skin trauma.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
HFNC may lead to less treatment failure when compared to standard oxygen therapy, but probably makes little or no difference to treatment failure when compared to NIV or NIPPV. For most other review outcomes, we found no evidence of a difference in effect. However, the evidence was often of low or very low certainty. We found a large number of ongoing studies; including these in future updates could increase the certainty or may alter the direction of these effects.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Barotrauma; Bias; Critical Care; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Intubation; Length of Stay; Masks; Nasal Mucosa; Noninvasive Ventilation; Oxygen Inhalation Therapy; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Pneumonia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; Respiratory Insufficiency; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 33661521
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010172.pub3 -
Annals of Medicine and Surgery (2012) Jan 2022An ever-increasing number of studies have reported an increased incidence of spontaneous pulmonary barotrauma such as pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, and subcutaneous... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
An ever-increasing number of studies have reported an increased incidence of spontaneous pulmonary barotrauma such as pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, and subcutaneous emphysema in patients with COVID-19. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the value and significance of the available data.
METHODS
A thorough systematic search was conducted to identify studies of barotrauma in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Data analysis of case reports was done using a statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS) version 22, and meta-analysis was performed using CMA-3.
RESULTS
We identified a total of 4488 studies after thorough database searching.118 case reports and series, and 15 observational studies were included in the qualitative analysis. Fifteen studies were included in the quantitative analysis. The observational studies reported barotrauma in 4.2% (2.4-7.3%) among hospitalized patients; 15.6% (11-21.8%) among critically ill patients; and 18.4% (13-25.3%) in patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, showing a linear relationship of barotrauma with the severity of the disease. In addition, barotrauma was associated with a longer length of hospital stay, more extended ICU stay, and higher in-hospital mortality. Also, a slightly higher odds of barotrauma was seen in COVID-19 ARDS compared with non-COVID-19 ARDS.
CONCLUSION
COVID-19 pneumonia is associated with a higher incidence of barotrauma. It presents unique challenges for invasive and non-invasive ventilation management. Further studies are required to unravel the underlying pathophysiology and develop safer management strategies.
PubMed: 35003730
DOI: 10.1016/j.amsu.2021.103221 -
Asian Cardiovascular & Thoracic Annals Feb 2022There are various reports of air leaks with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We undertook a systematic review of all published case reports and series to analyse the...
INTRODUCTION
There are various reports of air leaks with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We undertook a systematic review of all published case reports and series to analyse the types of air leaks in COVID-19 and their outcomes.
METHODS
The literature search from PubMed, Science Direct, and Google Scholar databases was performed from the start of the pandemic till 31 March 2021. The inclusion criteria were case reports or series on (1) laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, (2) with the individual patient details, and (3) reported diagnosis of one or more air leak syndrome (pneumothorax, subcutaneous emphysema, pneumomediastinum, pneumoperitoneum, pneumopericardium).
RESULTS
A total of 105 studies with 188 patients were included in the final analysis. The median age was 56.02 (SD 15.53) years, 80% males, 11% had previous respiratory disease, and 8% were smokers. Severe or critical COVID-19 was present in 50.6% of the patients. Pneumothorax (68%) was the most common type of air leak. Most patients (56.7%) required intervention with lower mortality (29.1% vs. 44.1%, p = 0.07) and intercostal drain (95.9%) was the preferred interventional management. More than half of the patients developed air leak on spontaneous breathing. The mortality was significantly higher in patients who developed air leak with positive pressure ventilation (49%, p < 0.001) and required escalation of respiratory support (39%, p = 0.006).
CONCLUSION
Air leak in COVID-19 can occur spontaneously without positive pressure ventilation, higher transpulmonary pressures, and other risk factors like previous respiratory disease or smoking. The mortality is significantly higher if associated with positive pressure ventilation and escalation of respiratory support.
Topics: COVID-19; Female; Humans; Male; Mediastinal Emphysema; Middle Aged; Pneumothorax; SARS-CoV-2; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34247490
DOI: 10.1177/02184923211031134 -
Diving and Hyperbaric Medicine Jun 2017Scuba diving is a popular recreational and professional activity with inherent risks. Complications related to barotrauma and decompression illness can pose significant... (Review)
Review
Scuba diving is a popular recreational and professional activity with inherent risks. Complications related to barotrauma and decompression illness can pose significant morbidity to a diver's hearing and balance systems. The majority of dive-related injuries affect the head and neck, particularly the outer, middle and inner ear. Given the high incidence of otologic complications from diving, an evidence-based approach to the diagnosis and treatment of otic pathology is a necessity. We performed a systematic and comprehensive literature review including the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of otologic pathology related to diving. This included inner, middle, and outer ear anatomic subsites, as well as facial nerve complications, mal de debarquement syndrome, sea sickness and fitness to dive recommendations following otologic surgery. Sixty-two papers on diving and otologic pathology were included in the final analysis. We created a set of succinct evidence-based recommendations on each topic that should inform clinical decisions by otolaryngologists, dive medicine specialists and primary care providers when faced with diving-related patient pathology.
Topics: Barotrauma; Biophysical Phenomena; Decompression Sickness; Diving; Ear Diseases; Ear, Inner; Ear, Middle; Exostoses; Humans; Otitis Externa; Postural Balance; Sensation Disorders; Vertigo
PubMed: 28641322
DOI: 10.28920/dhm47.2.97-109 -
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine Aug 2022Blast polytrauma is among the most serious mechanisms of injury confronted by medical providers. There are currently no specific studies or guidelines that define risk... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Blast polytrauma is among the most serious mechanisms of injury confronted by medical providers. There are currently no specific studies or guidelines that define risk factors for mortality in the context of pediatric blast injuries or describe pediatric blast injury profiles.
OBJECTIVE
The objectives of this study were to evaluate risk factors for pediatric mortality and to describe differences in injury profiles between explosions related to terrorism versus unrelated to terrorism within the pediatric population.
METHODS
A PRISMA systematic review and meta-analysis was performed where articles published from the years 2000-2021 were extracted from PubMed. Mortality and injury profile data were extracted from articles that met inclusion criteria. A bivariant unadjusted odds ratio (OR) analysis was performed to establish protective and harmful factors associated with mortality and to describe the injury profiles of blasts related to terrorism. Statistical significance was established at P < .05.
RESULTS
Thirty-eight articles were included and described a total of 222,638 unique injuries. Factors associated with increased mortality included if the explosion was related to terrorism (OR = 32.73; 95% CI, 28.80-37.21; P < .05) and if the explosion involved high-grade explosives utilized in the Global War on Terror ([GWOT] OR = 1.28; 95% CI, 1.04-1.44; P < .05). Factors associated with decreased mortality included if the patient was resuscitated in a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)-affiliated combat trauma hospital (OR = 0.48; 95% CI, 0.37-0.62; P < .05); if the explosive was fireworks (OR = 3.20×10-5; 95% CI, 2.00×10-6-5.16×10-4; P < .05); and if the explosion occurred in the United States (OR = 2.40×10-5; 95% CI, 1.51×10-6-3.87×10-4; P < .05). On average, victims of explosions related to terrorism were 10.30 years old (SD = 2.73) with 68.96% (SD = 17.58%) of victims reported as male. Comparison of victims of explosions related to terrorism revealed a higher incidence of thoracoabdominal trauma (30.2% versus 8.6%), similar incidence of craniocerebral trauma (39.5% versus 43.1%), and lower incidence of extremity trauma (31.8% versus 48.3%) compared to victims of explosions unrelated to terrorism.
CONCLUSION
Explosions related to terrorism are associated with increased mortality and unique injury profiles compared to explosions unrelated to terrorism in the pediatric population. Such findings are important for optimizing disaster medical education of pediatric providers in preparation for and management of acute sequelae of blast injuries-terror-related and otherwise.
Topics: Blast Injuries; Child; Explosions; Hospitals; Humans; Male; Multiple Trauma; Terrorism
PubMed: 35603691
DOI: 10.1017/S1049023X22000747 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016The rising prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) has increased the need for evidence-based treatments to lessen the impact of symptoms. Presently, no therapies... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The rising prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) has increased the need for evidence-based treatments to lessen the impact of symptoms. Presently, no therapies are available to effectively treat individuals with all of the symptoms of this disorder. It has been suggested that hyperbaric oxygen therapy may alleviate the biochemical dysfunction and clinical symptoms of ASD.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether treatment with hyperbaric oxygen:1. improves core symptoms of ASD, including social communication problems and stereotypical and repetitive behaviors;2. improves noncore symptoms of ASD, such as challenging behaviors;3. improves comorbid states, such as depression and anxiety; and4. causes adverse effects.
SEARCH METHODS
On 10 December 2015, we searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and 15 other databases, four of which were Chinese language databases. We also searched multiple trial and research registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of any dose, duration, and frequency for hyperbaric oxygen therapy compared with no treatment or sham treatment for children and adults with ASD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration, in that three review authors independently selected studies, assessed them for risk of bias, and extracted relevant data. We also assessed the quality of the evidence by using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included one trial with a total of 60 children with a diagnosis of ASD who randomly received hyperbaric oxygen therapy or a sham treatment. Using GRADE criteria, we rated the quality of the evidence as low because of the small sample size and wide confidence intervals (CIs). Other problems included selection bias and short duration or follow-up.Overall, study authors reported no improvement in social interaction and communication, behavioral problems, communication and linguistic abilities, or cognitive function. With regard to the safety of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (adverse events), they reported minor-grade ear barotrauma events. Investigators found significant differences between groups in total number of side effect events (Peto odds ratio (OR) 3.87, 95% CI 1.53 to 9.82) and in the number of children who experienced side effects (Peto OR 4.40, 95% CI 1.33 to 14.48).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
To date, there is no evidence that hyperbaric oxygen therapy improves core symptoms and associated symptoms of ASD. It is important to note that adverse effects (minor-grade ear barotrauma events) can occur. Given the absence of evidence of effectiveness and the limited biological plausibility and possible adverse effects, the need for future RCTs of hyperbaric oxygen therapy must be carefully considered.
Topics: Autism Spectrum Disorder; Child; Child, Preschool; Cognition; Communication; Humans; Hyperbaric Oxygenation; Interpersonal Relations; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27737490
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010922.pub2 -
Respiratory Care Jan 2021Studies evaluating neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) in the management of ARDS have produced inconsistent results in terms of their effect on mortality. The purpose... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Studies evaluating neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) in the management of ARDS have produced inconsistent results in terms of their effect on mortality. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate differences in mortality comparing subjects with ARDS who received NMBA to those who received placebo or usual care.
METHODS
We searched Ovid, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials evaluating administration of NMBAs in subjects with ARDS.
RESULTS
We included 6 studies ( = 1,558 subjects) from 1,814 abstracts identified by our search strategy. The use of early, continuous-infusion NMBAs reduces the risk of short-term (ie, 21-28-d) mortality (relative risk 0.71 [95% CI 0.52-0.98], = .030, = 60%) in subjects with ARDS but does not reduce the risk of long-term (ie, 90-d) mortality (relative risk 0.81 [95% CI 0.64-1.04], = .10, = 54%). NMBAs decreased the risk of barotrauma (relative risk 0.55 [95% CI 0.35-0.85], = .008, = 0%) and pneumothorax (relative risk 0.46 [95% CI 0.28-0.77], = .003, = 0%) compared to control.
CONCLUSIONS
In subjects with ARDS, early use of NMBAs improves oxygenation, reduces the incidence of ventilator-induced lung injury, and decreases 21-28-d mortality, but it does not improve 90-d mortality. NMBAs should be considered for select patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS for short durations.
Topics: Barotrauma; Humans; Lung; Neuromuscular Blocking Agents; Respiration, Artificial; Respiratory Distress Syndrome; Time Factors
PubMed: 32843506
DOI: 10.4187/respcare.07849 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2016Recruitment manoeuvres involve transient elevations in airway pressure applied during mechanical ventilation to open ('recruit') collapsed lung units and increase the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Recruitment manoeuvres involve transient elevations in airway pressure applied during mechanical ventilation to open ('recruit') collapsed lung units and increase the number of alveoli participating in tidal ventilation. Recruitment manoeuvres are often used to treat patients in intensive care who have acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but the effect of this treatment on clinical outcomes has not been well established. This systematic review is an update of a Cochrane review originally published in 2009.
OBJECTIVES
Our primary objective was to determine the effects of recruitment manoeuvres on mortality in adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome.Our secondary objective was to determine, in the same population, the effects of recruitment manoeuvres on oxygenation and adverse events (e.g. rate of barotrauma).
SEARCH METHODS
For this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL, EBSCO), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS) and the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry from inception to August 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults who were mechanically ventilated that compared recruitment manoeuvres versus standard care for patients given a diagnosis of ARDS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.
MAIN RESULTS
Ten trials met the inclusion criteria for this review (n = 1658 participants). We found five trials to be at low risk of bias and five to be at moderate risk of bias. Six of the trials included recruitment manoeuvres as part of an open lung ventilation strategy that was different from control ventilation in aspects other than the recruitment manoeuvre (such as mode of ventilation, higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration and lower tidal volume or plateau pressure). Six studies reported mortality outcomes. Pooled data from five trials (1370 participants) showed a reduction in intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.97, P = 0.02, low-quality evidence), pooled data from five trials (1450 participants) showed no difference in 28-day mortality (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.01, P = 0.06, low-quality evidence) and pooled data from four trials (1313 participants) showed no difference in in-hospital mortality (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.01, P = 0.07, low-quality evidence). Data revealed no differences in risk of barotrauma (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.53, P = 0.60, seven studies, 1508 participants, moderate-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We identified significant clinical heterogeneity in the 10 included trials. Results are based upon the findings of several (five) trials that included an "open lung ventilation strategy", whereby the intervention group differed from the control group in aspects other than the recruitment manoeuvre (including co-interventions such as higher PEEP, different modes of ventilation and higher plateau pressure), making interpretation of the results difficult. A ventilation strategy that included recruitment manoeuvres in participants with ARDS reduced intensive care unit mortality without increasing the risk of barotrauma but had no effect on 28-day and hospital mortality. We downgraded the quality of the evidence to low, as most of the included trials provided co-interventions as part of an open lung ventilation strategy, and this might have influenced results of the outcome.
Topics: Acute Lung Injury; Adult; Humans; Oxygen Consumption; Positive-Pressure Respiration, Intrinsic; Pressure; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; Respiratory Distress Syndrome; Young Adult
PubMed: 27855477
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006667.pub3 -
The Journal of Headache and Pain Aug 2017Headache attributed to airplane travel, also named "airplane headache" (AH) is a headache that occurs during take-off and landing. Today, there are still uncertainties... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Headache attributed to airplane travel, also named "airplane headache" (AH) is a headache that occurs during take-off and landing. Today, there are still uncertainties about the pathophysiology and treatment of AH. This systematic review was performed to facilitate identification of the existing literature on AH in order to discuss the current evidence and areas that remain to be investigated in AH.
METHODS
The systematic literature search was performed in 3 relevant medical databases; PubMed, Scopus, and Embase. The search yielded 220 papers and the papers were sorted based on inclusion and exclusion criteria established for this study.
RESULTS
This systematic review included 39 papers. Main findings revealed that AH attacks are clinically stereotyped and appear mostly during landing phases. The headache presents as a severe painful headache that often disappears within 30 min. The pain is unilateral and localized in the fronto-orbital region. Sinus barotrauma has been considered as the main cause of AH. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and triptans have been taken by passengers with AH, to relieve the headache.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on this systematic review, further studies seem required to investigate underlying mechanisms in AH and also to investigate the biological effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and triptans for alleviating of AH. These studies would advance our understanding of AH pathogenesis and potential use of treatments that are not yet established.
Topics: Aircraft; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Barotrauma; Frontal Sinus; Headache; Humans; Travel; Tryptamines
PubMed: 28815436
DOI: 10.1186/s10194-017-0788-0