3.9 Article

Hypoxia Awareness Training for Aircrew: A Comparison of Two Techniques

期刊

AVIATION SPACE AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE
卷 81, 期 9, 页码 857-863

出版社

AEROSPACE MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.3357/ASEM.2640.2010

关键词

aerospace medicine; hypoxia training; respiratory physiology; altitude

向作者/读者索取更多资源

SINGH B, CABLE GC, HAMPSON CV, PASCOE CD, CORBETT M, SMITH A. Hypoxia awareness training for aircrew: a comparison of two techniques. Aviat Space Environ Med 2010; 81:857-63. Introduction: Major hazards associated with hypoxia awareness training are the risks of decompression sickness, barotrauma, and loss of consciousness. An alternate method has been developed which combines exposure to a simulated altitude of 10,000 ft (3048 m) with breathing of a gas mixture containing 10% oxygen and 90% nitrogen. The paradigm, called Combined Altitude and Depleted Oxygen (CADO), places the subjects at a physiological altitude of 25,000 ft (7620 m) and provides demonstration of symptoms of hypoxia and the effects of pressure change. CADO is theoretically safer than traditional training at a simulated altitude of 25,000 ft (7620 m) clue to a much lower risk of decompression sickness (DCS) and has greater fidelity of training for fast jet aircrew (mask-on hypoxia). This study was conducted to validate CADO by comparing it with hypobaric hypoxia. Methods: There were 43 subjects who were exposed to two regimens of hypoxia training: hypobaric hypoxia (HH) at a simulated altitude of 25,000 ft (7620 m) and CADO. Subjective, physiological, and performance data of the subjects were collected, analyzed, and compared. Results: There were no significant differences in the frequency and severity of the 24 commonly reported symptoms, or in the physiological response, between the two types of hypoxia exposure. Conclusions: CADO is similar to HH in terms of the type and severity of symptoms experienced by subjects, and appears to be an effective, useful, and safe tool for hypoxia training.

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

3.9
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