The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of low-dose acetazolamide (125 mg twice daily) for the prevention of acute mountain sickness (AMS). The design was a prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in the Mt. Everest region of Nepal between Pheriche (4243 m), the study enrollment site, and Lobuje (4937 m), the study endpoint. The participants were 197 healthy male and female trekkers of diverse background, and they were evaluated with the Lake Louise Acute Mountain Sickness Scoring System and pulse oximetry. The main outcome measures were incidence and severity of AMS as judged by the Lake Louise Questionnaire score at Lobuje. Of the 197 participants enrolled, 155 returned their data sheets at Lobuje. In the treatment group there was a statistically significant reduction in incidence of AMS (placebo group, 24.7%, 20 out of 81 subjects; acetazolamide group, 12.2%, 9 out of 74 subjects). Prophylaxis with acetazolamide conferred a 50.6% relative risk reduction, and the number needed to treat in order to prevent one instance of AMS was 8. Of those with AMS, 30% in the placebo group (6 of 20) versus 0% in the acetazolamide group (0 of 9) experienced a more severe degree of AMS as defined by a Lake Louise Questionnaire score of 5 or greater (p = 0.14). Secondary outcome measures associated with statistically significant findings favoring the treatment group included decrease in headache and a greater increase in final oxygen saturation at Lobuje. We concluded that acetazolamide 125 mg twice daily was effective in decreasing the incidence of AMS in this Himalayan trekking population.

This study reports on a unique strategy to improve resource utilization at large mass gatherings and the impact of this strategy on EMS and ED resource utilization. It appears that the addition of an on-site alcohol sobering facility to existing medical support services was associated with a significant decrease in EMS transports but no change in ED resource utilization. Further work is needed to determine if these findings can be reproduced at other mass gatherings.

Introduction: Many EMS agencies have de-emphasized or eliminated the use of long spinal boards (LSB) for patients with possible spinal injury. We sought to determine if implementation of spinal motion restriction (SMR) protocols, which reduce LSB use, was associated with an increase in spinal cord injury (SCI). Methods: This retrospective observational study includes EMS encounters from 1/1/2013 to 12/31/2015 submitted by SMR-adopting ground-based agencies to a state EMS database with hospital discharge data. Encounters were excluded if SMR implementation date was unknown, occurred during a 3-month run-in period, or were duplicates. Study samples include patients with traumatic injury (TI), possible spinal trauma (P-ST), and verified spinal trauma (V-ST) using hospital discharge ICD-9/10 diagnosis codes. The incidence of SCI before and after implementation of SMR was compared using Chi-squared and logistic regression. Results: From 1,005,978 linked encounters, 104,315 unique encounters with traumatic injury and known SMR implementation date were identified with 51,199 cases of P-ST and 5,178 V-ST cases. The incidence of SCI in the pre-SMR and post-SMR interval for each group was: TI, 0.20% vs. 0.22% (p=0.390); P-ST, 0.40% vs. 0.45% (p=0.436); and V-ST, 4.04% vs. 4.37% (p = 0.561). Age and injury severity adjusted odds ratio of SCI in the highest risk cohort of patients with V-ST was 1.097 after SMR implementation (95% CI 0.818-1.472). Conclusion: In this limited study, no change in the incidence of SCI was identified following implementation of SMR protocols. Prospective evaluation of this question is necessary to evaluate the safety of SMR protocols.