Self David A, Mandella Joseph G, Prinzo O Veronika, Forster Estrella M, Shaffstall Robert M
Civil Aerospace Medical Institute, Federal Aviation Administration, Oklahoma City, OK 73125, USA.
Aviat Space Environ Med. 2011 Feb;82(2):97-103. doi: 10.3357/asem.2908.2011.
Skepticism exists about whether normobaric and hypobaric hypoxic exposures are equivalent. We have evaluated if physiological differences between the two environments would translate into actual differences in hypoxia symptoms.
We exposed 20 subjects to 5-min 25,000-ft (7620-m) equivalent environments in an altitude chami ber and then in a ground-level portable reduced-oxygen training enclosure (PROTE). Heart rate and hemoglobin oxygen saturation (SaO2) were continuously monitored. Alveolar gas samples were collected at 1, 3, and 4 min elapsed time. Subjects completed hypoxia symptom questionnaires at the same time points.
Mean fourth minute alveolar oxygen tension (PaO2), alveolar carbon dioxide tension (PaCO2), and respiratory quotient (RQ) differed significantly between the chamber and PROTE. Declines in SaO2 appeared biphasic, with steepest declines seen in the first minute. Rates of SaO2 decline over the 5-min exposure were significantly different. Heart rate was not different, even when indexed to body surface area. Mean number of hypoxia symptoms between hypobaric and normobaric environments after 1 min were significant. However, the temporal pattern of symptom frequencies across subjects between the chamber and PROTE were similar.
Alveolar gas composition and arterial hemoglobin oxygen desaturation patterns differed between a ground level and hypobaric exposure. Differences in mean number of hypoxia symptoms between hypobaric and normobaric environments after 1 min, but not at 3 and 4 min, coupled with similar patterns in symptom frequencies, suggest that ground-level hypoxia training may be a sufficiently faithful surrogate for altitude chamber training.
对于常压和低压低氧暴露是否等效存在怀疑。我们评估了这两种环境之间的生理差异是否会转化为缺氧症状的实际差异。
我们让20名受试者在高空舱中暴露于相当于25000英尺(7620米)高度的环境5分钟,然后在地面便携式低氧训练舱(PROTE)中进行同样的暴露。持续监测心率和血红蛋白氧饱和度(SaO2)。在经过1、3和4分钟时采集肺泡气体样本。受试者在相同时间点完成缺氧症状问卷。
舱内和PROTE中的平均第四分钟肺泡氧分压(PaO2)、肺泡二氧化碳分压(PaCO2)和呼吸商(RQ)存在显著差异。SaO2的下降呈双相性,在第一分钟下降最为陡峭。5分钟暴露期间SaO2的下降速率显著不同。即使以体表面积进行指数化,心率也没有差异。1分钟后低压和常压环境下缺氧症状的平均数量有显著差异。然而,舱内和PROTE中受试者症状频率的时间模式相似。
地面和低压暴露之间的肺泡气体成分和动脉血红蛋白氧去饱和模式不同。1分钟后低压和常压环境下缺氧症状平均数量存在差异,但3分钟和4分钟时没有差异,再加上症状频率模式相似,表明地面低氧训练可能是高空舱训练的一个足够可靠的替代方法。