4.6 Article

Prevalence and knowledge about acute mountain sickness in the Western Alps

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 18, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0291060

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The prevalence of acute mountain sickness (AMS) was assessed in mountaineers at different altitudes in the Western Alps. AMS was found to be common at altitudes >= 3650 m, and factors such as a history of AMS, higher altitude, lower degree of pre-acclimatization, and younger age were identified as risk factors. Slow ascent was weakly associated with AMS prevalence.
ObjectiveTo assess the prevalence of acute mountain sickness (AMS) in 1370 mountaineers at four different altitudes in the Western Alps. We also examined the influence of potential risk factors and the knowledge about AMS on its prevalence.MethodsIn this observational cross-sectional study AMS was assessed on the day of ascent by the Lake Louise score (LLS, cut-off >= 3, version 2018) and the AMS-Cerebral (AMS-C) score of the environmental symptom questionnaire (cut-off >= 0,70). The latter was also obtained in the next morning. Knowledge regarding AMS and high-altitude cerebral edema (HACE) and the potential risk factors for AMS were evaluated by questionnaires.ResultsOn the day of ascent, the prevalence of AMS assessed by the LLS and AMS-C score was 5.8 and 3.9% at 2850 m, 2.1 and 3.1% at 3050 m, 14.8 and 10.1% at 3650 m, and 21.9 and 15% at 4559 m, respectively. The AMS prevalence increased overnight from 10.1 to 14.5% and from 15 to 25.2% at 3650 m and 4559 m, respectively, and was unchanged at 2850 m and 3050 m. A history of AMS, higher altitude, lower degree of pre-acclimatization, and younger age were identified as risk factors for developing AMS. Slow ascent was weakly associated with AMS prevalence, and sex and knowledge about AMS and HACE were indistinct.ConclusionAMS is common at altitudes >= 3650 m and better knowledge about AMS and HACE was not associated with less AMS in mountaineers with on average little knowledge.

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

4.6
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