A pro/con review comparing the use of mono- and multiplace hyperbaric chambers for critical care

Hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBOT) of critically ill patients requires special technology and appropriately trained medical team staffing for '24/7' emergency services. Regardless of the chamber system used it is essential that the attending nurse and critical care specialist understand the physics and physiology of hyperbaric oxygen for safe treatment and compression/decompression procedures. Mechanical ventilation through endotracheal tube or tracheotomy is hampered by the increased gas density and flow resistance with risks of hypoventilation, carbon dioxide retention and oxygen seizures. Ventilation should be controlled and arterial and end-tidal carbon dioxide levels monitored. Haemodynamically unstable patients require careful risk-benefit evaluation, invasive monitoring and close supervision of inotropes, vasopressors and sedative drug infusions to avoid blood pressure swings and risk of awareness. Two distinctly different chambers are used for critical care. Small cost-efficient and easy-to-install acrylic monoplace chambers require less staffing and no inside attendant. Major disadvantages include patient isolation with difficulties to maintain standard organ support and invasive monitoring. Monoplace ventilators are less advanced and require the use of muscle relaxants and excessive sedation. Intravenous lines must be changed to specially designed IV pumps located outside the chamber with chamber pass-through and risk of inaccurate drug delivery. The multiplace chamber is better suited for HBOT of critically ill patients with failing vital functions and organ systems, primarily because it permits appropriate ICU equipment to be used inside the chamber by accompanying staff. Normal 'hands-on' intensive care continues during HBOT with close attention to all aspects of critical patient care. A regional trauma hospital-based rectangular chamber system immediately bordering critical care and emergency ward facilities is the best solution for safe HBOT in the critically ill. Disadvantages include long-term commitment, larger space requirements and higher capitalization, technical and staffing costs.