4.0 Article

High-Intensity Intermittent Exercise Increases Pulmonary Interstitial Edema at Altitude But Not at Simulated Altitude

期刊

WILDERNESS & ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE
卷 25, 期 4, 页码 409-415

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wem.2014.06.016

关键词

altitude; exercise; ultrasound; high altitude pulmonary edema

资金

  1. BMRES
  2. JABBS Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective.-Ascent to high altitude leads to a reduction in ambient pressure and a subsequent fall in available oxygen. The resulting hypoxia can lead to elevated pulmonary artery (PA) pressure, capillary stress, and an increase in interstitial fluid. This fluid can be assessed on lung ultrasound (LUS) by the presence of B-lines. We undertook a chamber and field study to assess the impact of high-intensity exercise in hypoxia on the development of pulmonary interstitial edema in healthy lowlanders. Methods.-Thirteen volunteers completed a high-intensity intermittent exercise (HIIE) test at sea level, in acute normobaric hypoxia (12% O-2 approximately 4090 m equivalent altitude), and in hypobaric hypoxia during a field study at 4090 m after 6 days of acclimatization. Pulmonary interstitial edema was assessed by the evaluation of LUS B-lines. Results.-After HOE, no increase in B-lines was seen in normoxia, and a small increase was seen in acute normobaric hypoxia (2 +/- 2; P < .05). During the field study at 4090 m, 12 participants (92%) demonstrated 7 +/- 4 B-lines at rest, which increased to 17 +/- 5 immediately after the exercise test (P < .001). An increase was evident in all participants. There was a reciprocal fall in peripheral arterial oxygen saturations (Spo(2)) after exercise from 88% +/- 4% to 80% +/- 8% (P < .01). B-lines and Spo(2) in all participants returned to baseline levels within 4 hours. Conclusions.-HIIE led to an increase in B-lines at altitude after subacute exposure but not during acute exposure at equivalent simulated altitude. This may indicate pulmonary interstitial edema.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据