Cycling Time Trial Is More Altered in Hypobaric than Normobaric Hypoxia

PURPOSE: Slight physiological differences between acute exposure in normobaric hypoxia (NH) and hypobaric hypoxia (HH) have been reported. Taken together, these differences suggest different physiological responses to hypoxic exposure to a simulated altitude (NH) versus a terrestrial altitude (HH). For this purpose, in the present study, we aimed to directly compare the time-trial performance after acute hypoxia exposure (26 h, 3450 min) by the same subjects under three different conditions: NH, HH, and normobaric normoxia (NN). Based on all of the preceding studies examining the differences among these hypoxic conditions, we hypothesized greater performance impairment in HH than in NH. METHODS: The experimental design consisted of three sessions: NN (Sion: FiO2, 20.93), NH (Sion, hypoxic room: FiO2, 13.6%; barometric pressure, 716 mm Hg), and HH (Jungfraujoch: FiO2, 20.93; barometric pressure, 481 mm Hg). The performance was evaluated at the end of each session with a cycle time trial of 250 kJ. RESULTS: The mean time trial duration in NN was significantly shorter than under the two hypoxic conditions (P < 0.001). In addition, the mean duration in NH was significantly shorter than that in HH (P < 0.01). The mean pulse oxygen saturation during the time trial was significantly lower for HH than for NH (P < 0.05), and it was significantly higher in NN than for the two other sessions (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: As previously suggested, HH seems to be a more stressful stimulus, and NH and HH should not be used interchangeability when endurance performance is the main objective. The principal factor in this performance difference between hypoxic conditions seemed to be the lower peripheral oxygen saturation in HH at rest, as well as during exercise.

A randomized double-blind control study of early intra-coronary autologous bone marrow cell infusion in acute myocardial infarction: the REGENERATE-AMI clinical trial?.

AIMS: Clinical trials suggest that intracoronary delivery of autologous bone marrow-derived cells (BMCs) 1-7 days post-acute myocardial infarction (AMI) may improve left ventricular (LV) function. Earlier time points have not been evaluated. We sought to determine the effect of intracoronary autologous BMC on LV function when delivered within 24 h of successful reperfusion therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: A multi-centre phase II randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled trial. One hundred patients with anterior AMI and significant regional wall motion abnormality were randomized to receive either intracoronary infusion of BMC or placebo (1:1) within 24 h of successful primary percutaneous intervention (PPCI). The primary endpoint was the change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) between baseline and 1 year as determined by advanced cardiac imaging. At 1 year, although LVEF increased compared with baseline in both groups, the between-group difference favouring BMC was small (2.2%; 95% confidence interval, CI: -0.5 to 5.0; P = 0.10). However, there was a significantly greater myocardial salvage index in the BMC-treated group compared with placebo (0.1%; 95% CI: 0.0-0.20; P = 0.048). Major adverse events were rare in both treatment groups. CONCLUSION: The early infusion of intracoronary BMC following PPCI for patients with AMI and regional wall motion abnormality leads to a small non-significant improvement in LVEF when compared with placebo; however, it may play an important role in infarct remodelling and myocardial salvage. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00765453 and EudraCT 2007-002144-16.