Erratum: Carbon Monoxide Poisoning: Pathogenesis, Management, and Future Directions of Therapy

There were errors in the article by Rose and colleagues (1), which appeared in the March 1, 2017 issue of the Journal. In Table 1, “Intervention” column, the second entry for Reference 83 should read “LOC: 2× HBO₂ (2.0 ATA) × 60 min” instead of “90 min.” In addition, for the row corresponding to Reference 87, the numbers in the “Events Treated” and “Events Control” columns should be reversed: “33/79” should appear under “Treated,” and “29/74” should appear under “Control.” For the convenience of our readers, we reprint the corrected table below (Table 1) (the corrected figures appear in boldface).

Table 1.

Hyperbaric Oxygen Trials versus Control Shows Mixed Evidence of Benefit

Reference No.	Intervention	Reference	Evaluation	Events		Benefit
				Treated	Control
83	No LOC: HBO2 (2.0 ATA) × 60 min	NBO2 6 h	Neurologic symptoms at 1 mo	51/159	50/158	N
	LOC: 2× HBO2 (2.0 ATA) × 60 min	1× HBO2 (2.0 ATA) × 90 m
84	HBO2 (2.8 ATA) × 30 min	NBO2 until asymptomatic	Delayed neurologic sequelae 4 wk follow-up	0/30	7/30	Y
	then (2.0 ATA) × 90 min
85	HBO2 (2.5 ATA) × 90 min	12 h NBO2	1 mo persistent neurologic symptoms	69/299	73/276	N
86	HBO2 (2.8 ATA) × 100 min × 3–6 d	NBO2 × 100 min sham for 3–6 d	Neuropsychologic testing 1 mo	34/52	20/34	N
82	HBO2 1× (3 ATA × 1 h; 2 ATA × 1 h) then 2× (2 ATA) × 90 min	NBO2 sham treatment	Cognitive sequelae at 6 wk, 6 mo, and 1 yr	19/76	35/76	Y
87	HBO2 (2.0 ATA) × 60 m, NBO2 × 4 h	NBO2 6 h	Neurologic assessment 1 mo	33/79	29/74	N
88	LOC: HBO2 (2.0 ATA) × 1 h + 4 h NBO2	NBO2 6 h	1 mo questionnaire + physical exam	33/93	29/86	N
	Coma: 2× HBO2 (2.0 ATA) 1x h + 4 h NBO2	1× HBO2 + 4h NBO2		42/105	25/101	N
89	HBO2 (2.5 ATA) x2 h + 10 h NBO2	NBO2 × 12 h	3 wk EEG impairments or not	0/8	6/10	Y

Definition of abbreviations: ATA = atmospheres; HBO₂ = hyperbaric oxygen; LOC = loss of consciousness; N = no; NBO₂ = normobaric oxygen; Y = yes.

A metaanalysis (90) concluded that there is no clear benefit to HBO₂ in terms of delayed neurologic sequelae; however, with the significant heterogeneity in outcome measures and the treatments themselves, it is difficult to draw conclusions from metaanalyses on HBO₂.

At the time of the acceptance of the manuscript (October 14, 2016), some of the authors were co-inventors on pending U.S. patent applications directed to the treatment of carbon monoxide poisoning; however, this information was not included in the ICMJE disclosure forms attached to the online article. At that time, the AJRCCM Instructions for Contributors did not specify that pending patent applications should be listed on the disclosure forms (subsequently, the instructions have been updated to explicitly request the disclosure of all patents held or pending). We include here the patent/conflict positions at the time of the original ahead-of-print publication of the article (October 18, 2016), as supplied by the authors:

Dr. Rose, Dr. Xu, Dr. Tejero, and Dr. Gladwin are co-inventors of pending provisional patent applications and planned patents directed to the use of recombinant neuroglobin and heme-based molecules as antidotes for CO poisoning. Additionally, and unrelated to CO poisoning, Dr. Gladwin is a co-inventor on patents directed to the use of nitrite salts in cardiovascular diseases.