Interventions for preventing high altitude illness: Part 3. Miscellaneous and non-pharmacological interventions.
Daniel Molano Franco,Víctor H Nieto Estrada,Alejandro G Gonzalez Garay,Arturo J Martí‐Carvajal,Ingrid Arevalo‐Rodriguez,Arturo J Martí-Carvajal,Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013315
IF: 8.4
2019-10-07
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Abstract:High 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. To 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. We 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. We 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. We used the standard methodological procedures employed by Cochrane. We 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 pressure Use 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 vitamins Supplementation 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 comparisons We 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 -Abstract Truncated-
medicine, general & internal