Evidence Hub

Acute Coronary Syndrome at Altitude: Diagnostic Dilemma on Aconcagua Using Point-of-Care Ultrasound

Sullivan C, Brillhart A, Duplessis RJ, Stein E, Schlein SM

Wilderness & environmental medicine, 2024

Abstract

At the Plaza de Mulas medical tent, located at 4300 m (14,100 ft) along the Normal Route to the 6960 m (22,837 ft) summit of Aconcagua in Argentina, a Korean male in his 50s with no known medical conditions presented with lightheadedness and shortness of breath. He had taken sildenafil and acetazolamide that morning without improvement. Vital signs on arrival were notable for oxygen saturations in the high 60s with basilar crackles on lung auscultation, concerning for high altitude pulmonary edema. The patient was started on oxygen via nasal cannula and given dexamethasone. History was limited secondary to language barriers, but on review of systems the patient noted mild chest pressure. Bedside cardiac echocardiogram was performed, which revealed a septal wall motion abnormality. The patient was therefore given aspirin and clopidogrel and was flown to a lower trailhead, where he was met by local Emergency Medical Services. A 12-lead electrocardiogram revealed an anterior ST-elevation myocardial infarction, and the patient was taken emergently to the catheterization lab in Mendoza and underwent stent placement with a full recovery.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free