Exposure to Non-Steady-State Oxygen Is Reflected in Changes to Arterial Blood Gas Values, Prefrontal Cortical Activity, and Systemic Cytokine Levels.

Onboard oxygen-generating systems (OBOGSs) provide increased inspired oxygen (FiO2) to mitigate the risk of neurologic injury in high altitude aviators. OBOGSs can deliver highly variable oxygen concentrations oscillating around a predetermined FiO2 set point, even when the aircraft cabin altitude is relatively stable. Steady-state exposure to 100% FiO2 evokes neurovascular vasoconstriction, diminished cerebral perfusion, and altered electroencephalographic activity. Whether non-steady-state FiO2 exposure leads to similar outcomes is unknown. This study characterized the physiologic responses to steady-state and non-steady-state FiO2 during normobaric and hypobaric environmental pressures emulating cockpit pressures within tactical aircraft. The participants received an indwelling radial arterial catheter while exposed to steady-state or non-steady-state FiO2 levels oscillating ± 15% of prescribed set points in a hypobaric chamber. Steady-state exposure to 21% FiO2 during normobaria produced arterial blood gas values within the anticipated ranges. Exposure to non-steady-state FiO2 led to PaO2 levels higher upon cessation of non-steady-state FiO2 than when measured during steady-state exposure. This pattern was consistent across all FiO2 ranges, at each barometric condition. Prefrontal cortical activation during cognitive testing was lower following exposure to non-steady-state FiO2 >50% and <100% during both normobaria and hypobaria of 494 mmHg. The serum analyte levels (IL-6, IP-10, MCP-1, MDC, IL-15, and VEGF-D) increased 48 h following the exposures. We found non-steady-state FiO2 levels >50% reduced prefrontal cortical brain activation during the cognitive challenge, consistent with an evoked pattern of neurovascular constriction and dilation.

Clinical Impact of Cabin Altitude Restriction Following Aeromedical Evacuation.

Combat medical care relies on aeromedical evacuation (AE). Vital to AE is the validating flight surgeon (VFS) who warrants a patient is "fit to fly." To do this, the VFS considers clinical characteristics and inflight physiological stressors, often prescribing specific interventions such as a cabin altitude restriction (CAR). Unfortunately, limited information is available regarding the clinical consequences of a CAR. Consequently, a dual case-control study (CAR patients versus non-CAR patients and non-CAR patients flown with a CAR versus non-CAR patients) was executed. Data on 1,114 patients were obtained from TRANSCOM Regulating and Command and Control Evacuation System and Landstuhl Regional Medical Center trauma database (January 2007 to February 2008). Demographic and clinical factors essentially showed no difference between groups; however, CAR patients appeared more severely injured than non-CAR patients. Despite being sicker, CAR patients had similar clinical outcomes when compared with non-CAR patients. In contrast, despite an equivocal severity picture, the non-CAR patients flown with a CAR had superior clinical outcomes when compared with non-CAR patients. It appeared that the CAR prescription normalized severely injured to moderately injured and brought moderately injured into a less morbid state. These results suggest that CAR should be seriously considered when evacuating seriously ill/injured patients.