How can acute mountain sickness be quantified at moderate altitude?

Area of Science:

• Altitude sickness research
• Physiological responses to altitude

Background:

• Acute mountain sickness (AMS) reports vary at moderate altitudes, potentially due to differing assessment methods.
• Standardized evaluation of AMS is crucial for accurate incidence reporting and understanding physiological responses.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate how different investigation methods impact the reported incidence of acute mountain sickness (AMS).
• To compare the reliability of the Hackett's AMS score versus the Lake Louise AMS score at moderate altitude.

Main Methods:

• 99 alpinists were assessed at 2.94 km altitude using Hackett's AMS score (structured interview/exam), Lake Louise AMS score (self-reported questionnaire), and oxygen saturation.
• Data analysis focused on comparing AMS incidence rates and correlations between assessment methods and physiological markers.

Main Results:

• AMS incidence was 8% using Hackett's score and 25% using the Lake Louise score.
• Oxygen saturation correlated inversely with Hackett's score but not with the Lake Louise score.
• The Lake Louise score significantly overestimates AMS incidence compared to Hackett's score.

Conclusions:

• Hackett's AMS score is a more reliable method for assessing AMS incidence at moderate altitudes.
• The Lake Louise AMS score may overestimate AMS, highlighting the importance of validated diagnostic tools in altitude research.