The Western journal of medicine
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial
Acetazolamide or dexamethasone use versus placebo to prevent acute mountain sickness on Mount Rainier.
Eighteen climbers actively ascended Mount Rainier (elevation 4,392 m) twice during a randomized, double-blind, concurrent, placebo-controlled, crossover trial comparing the use of acetazolamide, 250 mg, dexamethasone, 4 mg, and placebo every 8 hours as prophylaxis for acute mountain sickness. Each subject was randomly assigned to receive placebo during one ascent and one of the active medications during the other ascent. Assessment of acute mountain sickness was performed using the Environmental Symptoms Questionnaire and a clinical interview. ⋯ Neither the use of dexamethasone nor that of acetazolamide measurably affected other physical or mental aspects. Compared with placebo, dexamethasone appears to be effective for prophylaxis of symptoms associated with acute mountain sickness accompanying rapid ascent. The precise role of dexamethasone for the prophylaxis of acute mountain sickness is not known, but it can be considered for persons without contraindications who are intolerant of acetazolamide, for whom acetazolamide is ineffective, or who must make forced, rapid ascent to high altitude for a short period of time with a guaranteed retreat route.
-
From 1976 to 1983, the adult respiratory distress syndrome occurred in 14 patients during pregnancy or within a month postpartum. There were 8 survivors, giving a 43% mortality. All but 2 patients had obstetric-related precipitating events--labor problems, infections, eclampsia-toxemia, and obstetric hemorrhages. ⋯ Infections were documented in 8 patients, 6 of whom had obstetric foci. There is a lack of information regarding the adult respiratory distress syndrome in this patient group. Though uncommon, it can cause substantial mortality and morbidity.
-
Comparative Study
Outcome, transport times, and costs of patients evacuated by helicopter versus fixed-wing aircraft.
We determined the differences in transport times and costs for patients transported by fixed-wing aircraft versus helicopter at ranges of 101 to 150 radial miles, where fixed-wing and helicopter in-hospital transports commonly overlap. Statistical analysis failed to show a significant difference between the trauma-care patients transported by helicopter (n = 109) and those transported by fixed-wing (n = 86) for age, injury severity score, hospital length of stay, hospital mortality, or discharge disability score. ⋯ Helicopter transport costs per mile ($24), however, were 400% higher than those of fixed-wing aircraft with its associated ground ambulance transport costs ($6). Thus, helicopter transport is economically unjustified for interhospital transports exceeding 100 radial miles when an efficient fixed-wing service exists.