autism - Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
Research that showed “significant improvement in overall behaviour [sic]” concluded that both increased pressures of normal air and increased pressures of 100% oxygen, lead to these results. What is important in understanding this research is that the “control” group that received greater pressures of normal air, was in fact being treated. Increasing the pressure of normal air significantly increases the levels of oxygen throughout the body and brain. Normal air also contains nitrogen, which acts to dilate blood vessels and improves delivery of oxygenated blood plasma to the tissues. This confusion in study design has also skewed the interpretation of similar research in the effects of HBOT (Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy) in traumatic brain injury. Those studies have been reviewed and their conclusions are being amended to show that overall increases in blood and tissue oxygenation are beneficial and safe. Essentially, these all are studies of the effects of varying “doses” of oxygen. The great advantage of 100% oxygen is that the tissues levels achieved are far greater, and there is no risk of nitrogen build up in the tissues that requires far more complex decompression. HBOT should be considered a safe, effective therapeutic modality in autism.

More information on: Autism & HBOT

Related Article:

Diving Hyperb Med. 2012 Sep;42(3):128-33.

Hyperbaric oxygen in the treatment of childhood autism: a randomised controlled trial.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Promising results with hyperbaric therapy for children with autism have been reported, but most involved the use of only mild pressure with oxygen supplementation. To date, there has been no randomised, blinded trial of 100% oxygen administered at hyperbaric pressure. This study evaluated the efficacy of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT).

METHODS:

Sixty Thai children with autism, aged three to nine years, were randomly assigned to receive 20 one-hour sessions of either HBOT at 153 kPa (1.5 ATA) or sham air at 116 kPa (1.15 ATA). Effects on behaviour were measured using the Autism Treatment Evaluation Checklist score (ATEC) and clinical improvement was measured with the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) system; in particular the clinical change (CGIC) and severity (CGIS) sub-scores. These were evaluated by parents and clinicians, both of whom were blinded to the actual exposure.

RESULTS:

The mean total ATEC scores by both parents and clinicians were significantly improved after intervention in both arms of the study compared to the score before intervention (P < 0.001 in both groups by parents, P = 0.015 in HBOT group and P = 0.004 in sham group by clinician). There were no statistically significant differences in average percentage changes of total ATEC score and all subscales scores when comparing the HBOT and sham air groups, either by parents or clinicians. Changes in the CGI scores following intervention were inconsistent between parents and clinicians. For severity scores (CGIS), parents rated their children as more improved following HBOT (P = 0.005), while the clinicians found no significant differences (P = 0.10). On the other hand, for change scores (CGIC) the clinicians indicated greater improvement following HBOT (P = 0.03), but the parents found no such difference (P = 0.28).

CONCLUSIONS:

Children with autism who received 20 sessions of either HBOT or a sham air exposure had significant improvements in overall behaviour but there were no significant differences in improvement between groups. The inconsistent changes on CGI sub-scores between parents and clinicians are difficult to interpret, but no overall clinically significant benefit from HBOT could be shown. Both interventions were safe and well tolerated with minimal side effect from middle ear barotraumas.

PMID:
22987458
[PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This

Share This

Share this post with your friends!