Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Int J Sports Med 2021; 42(09): 840-846
DOI: 10.1055/a-1342-8030
Clinical Sciences

Estimating Inert Gas Bubbling from Simple SCUBA Diving Parameters

Andreas Fichtner
1   Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany
2   Emergency Department, Kreiskrankenhaus Freiberg gGmbH, Freiberg, Germany
,
Benedikt Brunner
3   Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Algarve, Faro, Portugal
,
Thomas Pohl
4   Scientific Diving Center, TU Bergakademie Freiberg University, Freiberg, Germany
,
Thomas Grab
4   Scientific Diving Center, TU Bergakademie Freiberg University, Freiberg, Germany
,
Tobias Fieback
4   Scientific Diving Center, TU Bergakademie Freiberg University, Freiberg, Germany
,
Thea Koch
1   Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany
› Author Affiliations Funding: Open Access Funding by the Publication Fund of the TU Dresden.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Inert gas bubbles frequently occur in SCUBA divers’ vascular systems, eventually leading to decompression accidents. Only in professional settings, dive profiles can be adjusted on individual basis depending on bubble grades detected through ultrasonography. A total of 342 open-circuit air dives following sports diving profiles were assessed using echocardiography. Subsequently, (Eftedal-Brubakk) bubble grades were correlated with dive and individual parameters. Post-dive cardiac bubbles were observed in 47% of all dives and bubble grades were significantly correlated with depth (r=0.46), air consumption (r=0.41), age (r=0.25), dive time (r=0.23), decompression diving (r=0.19), surface time (r=− 0.12). Eftedal-Brubakk categorical bubble grades for sports diving with compressed air can be approximated by bubble grade = (age*50−1 – surface time*150−1+maximum depth*45−1+air consumption*4500−1)2 (units in years, hours, meter, and bar*liter; R2=0.31). Thus, simple dive and individual parameters allow reasonable estimation of especially relevant medium to higher bubble grades for information on relevant decompression stress after ascent. Echo bubble grade 0 is overestimated by the formula derived. However, echo might fail to detect minor bubbling only. The categorical prediction of individual decompression stress with simple bio and dive data should be evaluated further to be developed towards dive computer included automatic ex-post information for decision-making on individual safety measures.

Key words

decompression - bubble grade - SCUBA diving - Doppler ultrasound - risk management

2 Emergency Department, Kreiskrankenhaus Freiberg gGmbH, Freiberg, Germany.


4 Scientific Diving Center, TU Bergakademie Freiberg University, Freiberg, Germany.




Publication History

Received: 06 September 2020

Accepted: 14 December 2020

Article published online:
27 January 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Arieli R, Marmur A. A biophysical vascular bubble model for devising decompression procedures. Physiol Rep 2017; 5(6): e13191
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Carturan D, Boussuges A, Vanuxem P. et al. Ascent rate, age, maximal oxygen uptake, adiposity, and circulating venous bubbles after diving. J Appl Physiol (1985) 2002; 93: 1349-1356
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Cialoni D, Brizzolari A, Samaja M. et al. Altered venous blood nitric oxide levels at depth and related bubble formation during scuba diving. Front Physiol 2019; 10: 57
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Blogg SL, Gennser M, Møllerløkken A. et al. Ultrasound detection of vascular decompression bubbles: The influence of new technology and considerations on bubble load. Diving Hyperb Med 2014; 44: 35-44
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Eftedal O, Brubakk AO. Detecting intravascular gas bubbles in ultrasonic images. Med Biol Eng Comput 1993; 31: 627-633
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Eftedal OS, Lydersen S, Brubakk AO. The relationship between venous gas bubbles and adverse effects of decompression after air dives. Undersea Hyperb Med 2007; 34: 99-105
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Dive risk factors, gas bubble formation, and decompression illness in recreational SCUBA diving: Analysis of DAN Europe DSL Data Base. Front Psychol 2017; 8: 1587
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Møllerløkken A, Blogg SL, Doolette DJ. et al. Consensus guidelines for the use of ultrasound for diving research. Diving Hyperb Med 2016; 46: 26-32
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Eftedal O, Brubakk AO. Agreement between trained and untrained observers in grading intravascular bubble signals in ultrasonic images. Undersea Hyperb Med 1997; 24: 293-299
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Eftedal OS. Ultrasonic Detection of Decompression Induced Vascular Microbubbles. Thesis for the degree of doctor philosophiae, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Medicine 2007; ISBN 978-82-471-3697-3
    PubMed
  • 11 Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B. et al. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 2015; 67: 1-48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Doolette DJ, Gault KA, Gutvik CR. Sample size requirement for comparison of decompression outcomes using ultrasonically detected venous gas emboli (VGE): Power calculations using Monte Carlo resampling from real data. Diving Hyperb Med 2014; 44: 14-19
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Harriss DJ, MacSween A, Atkinson G. Ethical standards in sport and exercise science research: 2020 update. Int J Sports Med 2019; 40: 813-817
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hugon J. Decompression models: Review, relevance and validation capabilities. Undersea Hyperb Med 2014; 41: 531-556
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Lambrechts K, Pontier J-M, Mazur A. et al. Effect of decompression-induced bubble formation on highly trained divers microvascular function. Physiol Rep 2013; 1: e00142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Schellart NAM, van Rees Vellinga TP, van Dijk FJ. et al. Doppler bubble grades after diving and relevance of body fat. Aviat Space Environ Med 2012; 83: 951-957
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Spencer MP, Johanson DC. Investigation of New Principles for Human Decompression Schedules Using Doppler Ultrasonic Blood Bubble Detection. 1974; 1967-1974
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Kisman K, Masurel G, LaGrue D. et al. Evaluation of the quality of decompression using ultrasound bubble detection. Méd Aéro Spat Méd Sub Hyp 1978; 67: 293-297
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kisman K, Masurel G. Method for Evaluating Circulating Bubbles Detected by Means of the Doppler Ultrasonic Method Using the ‘K.M. Code’. Toulon, France: Centre d'Etudes et Recherches Techniques Sous-Marines. 1983
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Nishi RY, Kisman KE, Eatock BC. et al. Assessment of decompression profiles and divers by Doppler ultrasonic monitoring. In: Bachrach AJ, Matzen MM. Underwater Physiology VII. Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium on Underwater Physiology. Bethesda, MD: Undersea Medical Society. 1981: 717-727
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Arieli R. Nanobubbles Form at active hydrophobic spots on the luminal aspect of blood vessels: Consequences for decompression illness in diving and possible implications for autoimmune disease-an overview. Front Physiol 2017; 8: 591
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Cialoni D, Pieri M, Balestra C. et al. Flying after diving: Should recommendations be reviewed? In-flight echocardiographic study in bubble-prone and bubble-resistant divers. Diving Hyperb Med 2015; 45: 10-15
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Eftedal O, Brubakk AO, Nishi RY. Ultrasonic evaluation of decompression: The relationship between bubble grades and bubble numbers Undersea Hyperb Med. 1998; 25suppl: 1-60
    PubMedGoogle Scholar