• Daniel Molano Franco, Víctor H Nieto Estrada, Alejandro G Gonzalez Garay, Arturo J Martí-Carvajal, and Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez.
• Department of Critical Care, Fundacion Universitaria de Ciencias de la Salud, Hospital de San José, Carrera 19 # 8-32, Bogota, Bogota, Colombia, 11001.
• Cochrane Db Syst Rev. 2019 Apr 23; 4 (4): CD013315CD013315.

BackgroundHigh altitude illness (HAI) is a term used to describe a group of mainly cerebral and pulmonary syndromes that can occur during travel to elevations above 2500 metres (˜ 8200 feet). Acute mountain sickness (AMS), high altitude cerebral oedema (HACE), and high altitude pulmonary oedema (HAPE) are reported as potential medical problems associated with high altitude ascent. In this, the third of a series of three reviews about preventive strategies for HAI, we assessed the effectiveness of miscellaneous and non-pharmacological interventions.ObjectivesTo assess the clinical effectiveness and adverse events of miscellaneous and non-pharmacological interventions for preventing acute HAI in people who are at risk of developing high altitude illness in any setting.Search MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) in January 2019. We adapted the MEDLINE strategy for searching the other databases. We used a combination of thesaurus-based and free-text search terms. We scanned the reference lists and citations of included trials and any relevant systematic reviews that we identified for further references to additional trials.Selection CriteriaWe included randomized controlled trials conducted in any setting where non-pharmacological and miscellaneous interventions were employed to prevent acute HAI, including preacclimatization measures and the administration of non-pharmacological supplements. We included trials involving participants who are at risk of developing high altitude illness (AMS or HACE, or HAPE, or both). We included participants with, and without, a history of high altitude illness. We applied no age or gender restrictions. We included trials where the relevant intervention was administered before the beginning of ascent.Data Collection And AnalysisWe used the standard methodological procedures employed by Cochrane.Main ResultsWe included 20 studies (1406 participants, 21 references) in this review. Thirty studies (14 ongoing, and 16 pending classification (awaiting)) will be considered in future versions of this suite of three reviews as appropriate. We report the results for the primary outcome of this review (risk of AMS) by each group of assessed interventions.Group 1. Preacclimatization and other measures based on pressureUse of simulated altitude or remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) might not improve the risk of AMS on subsequent exposure to altitude, but this effect is uncertain (simulated altitude: risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.71; I² = 0%; 3 trials, 140 participants; low-quality evidence. RIPC: RR 3.0, 95% CI 0.69 to 13.12; 1 trial, 40 participants; low-quality evidence). We found evidence of improvement of this risk using positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), but this information was derived from a cross-over trial with a limited number of participants (OR 3.67, 95% CI 1.38 to 9.76; 1 trial, 8 participants; low-quality evidence). We found scarcity of evidence about the risk of adverse events for these interventions.Group 2. Supplements and vitaminsSupplementation of antioxidants, medroxyprogesterone, iron or Rhodiola crenulata might not improve the risk of AMS on exposure to high altitude, but this effect is uncertain (antioxidants: RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.03; 1 trial, 18 participants; low-quality evidence. Medroxyprogesterone: RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.05; I² = 0%; 2 trials, 32 participants; low-quality evidence. Iron: RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.11; I² = 0%; 2 trials, 65 participants; low-quality evidence. R crenulata: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.29; 1 trial, 125 participants; low-quality evidence). We found evidence of improvement of this risk with the administration of erythropoietin, but this information was extracted from a trial with issues related to risk of bias and imprecision (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.84; 1 trial, 39 participants; very low-quality evidence). Regarding administration of ginkgo biloba, we did not perform a pooled estimation of RR for AMS due to considerable heterogeneity between the included studies (I² = 65%). RR estimates from the individual studies were conflicting (from 0.05 to 1.03; low-quality evidence). We found scarcity of evidence about the risk of adverse events for these interventions.Group 3. Other comparisonsWe found heterogeneous evidence regarding the risk of AMS when ginkgo biloba was compared with acetazolamide (I² = 63%). RR estimates from the individual studies were conflicting (estimations from 0.11 (95% CI 0.01 to 1.86) to 2.97 (95% CI 1.70 to 5.21); low-quality evidence). We found evidence of improvement when ginkgo biloba was administered along with acetazolamide, but this information was derived from a single trial with issues associated to risk of bias (compared to ginkgo biloba alone: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.71; 1 trial, 311 participants; low-quality evidence). Administration of medroxyprogesterone plus acetazolamide did not improve the risk of AMS when compared to administration of medroxyprogesterone or acetazolamide alone (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.55; 1 trial, 12 participants; low-quality evidence). We found scarcity of evidence about the risk of adverse events for these interventions.Authors' ConclusionsThis Cochrane Review is the final in a series of three providing relevant information to clinicians, and other interested parties, on how to prevent high altitude illness. The assessment of non-pharmacological and miscellaneous interventions suggests that there is heterogeneous and even contradictory evidence related to the effectiveness of these prophylactic strategies. Safety of these interventions remains as an unclear issue due to lack of assessment. Overall, the evidence is limited due to its quality (low to very low), the relative paucity of that evidence and the number of studies pending classification for the three reviews belonging to this series (30 studies either awaiting classification or ongoing). Additional studies, especially those comparing with pharmacological alternatives (such as acetazolamide) are required, in order to establish or refute the strategies evaluated in this review.

16 keywords...

hide…