Tolerability of daily intermittent or continuous short-arm centrifugation during 60-day 6o head down bed rest (AGBRESA study).

Artificial gravity through short-arm centrifugation has potential as a multi-system countermeasure for deconditioning and cranial fluid shifts that may underlie ocular issues in microgravity. However, the optimal short-arm centrifugation protocol that is effective whilst remaining tolerable has yet to be determined. Given that exposure to centrifugation is associated with presyncope and syncope and in addition motion sickness an intermittent protocol has been suggested to be more tolerable. Therefore, we assessed cardiovascular loading and subjective tolerability of daily short arm centrifugation with either an intermittent or a continuous protocol during long-term head-down bed rest as model for microgravity exposure in a mixed sex cohort. During the Artificial Gravity Bed Rest with European Space Agency (AGBRESA) 60 day 6° head down tilt bed rest study we compared the tolerability of daily +1 Gz exposure at the center of mass centrifugation, either performed continuously for 30 minutes, or intermittedly (6 x 5 minutes). Heart rate and blood pressure were assessed daily during centrifugation along with post motion sickness scoring and rate of perceived exertion. During bed rest, 16 subjects (6 women, 10 men), underwent 960 centrifuge runs in total. Ten centrifuge runs had to be terminated prematurely, 8 continuous runs and 2 intermittent runs, mostly due to pre-syncopal symptoms and not motion sickness. All subjects were, however, able to resume centrifuge training on subsequent days. We conclude that both continuous and intermittent short-arm centrifugation protocols providing artificial gravity equivalent to +1 Gz at the center of mass is tolerable in terms of cardiovascular loading and motion sickness during long-term head down tilt bed rest. However, intermittent centrifugation appears marginally better tolerated, albeit differences appear minor.
Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interests as KBRwyle GmbH had no role in the study design and thus this does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.