SIDELINE AND EVENT MANAGEMENT
Exertional Heat Stroke: New Concepts Regarding
Cause and Care
Douglas J. Casa, PhD, ATC, FACSM, FNATA1,2; Lawrence E. Armstrong, PhD, FACSM1,2; Glen P.
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/acsm-csmr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 08/16/2021
Kenny, PhD2,3; Francis G. O’Connor, MD, MPH, FACSM2,4; and Robert A. Huggins, MEd, ATC1,2
Abstract
When athletes, warfighters, and laborers perform intense exercise in the
heat, the risk of exertional heat stroke (EHS) is ever present. The recent
data regarding the fatalities due to EHS within the confines of organized
American sport are not promising: during the past 35 years, the highest
number of deaths in a 5-year period occurred from 2005 to 2009. This
reminds us that, regardless of the advancements of knowledge in the
area of EHS prevention, recognition, and treatment, knowledge has not
been translated into practice. This article addresses important issues
related to EHS cause and care. We focus on the predisposing factors,
errors in care, physiology of cold water immersion, and return-to-play or
duty considerations.
Introduction
Throughout the sports and military medicine literature,
much evidence indicates that the common signs and symp-
toms of exertional heat stroke (EHS) include a core temper-
ature usually 940-C (104-F) coupled with central nervous
system alteration (3,13,17,49). Furthermore, much evidence
indicates that death related to EHS is preventable through
immediate recognition using a rectal thermometer and rapid
treatment via cold water immersion (CWI). Even with this
knowledge, the prevalence of EHS in competitive sport, mil-
itary, and industrial population continues to increase (3,9,
13,17,49). Within the last 5 years, the incidence of EHS
deaths in American sports remains high when compared
to the last 35 years, with the incidence from 2005 to 2009
being the highest ever recorded (49). This indicates that
recent findings are not being applied in clinical practice and
1
Department of Kinesiology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT; 2Korey
Stringer Institute, Neag School of Education, University of Connecticut,
Storrs, CT; 3School of Human Kinetics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada; and 4Military and Emergency Medicine, Uniformed
Services University, Bethesda, MD
Address for correspondence: Douglas J. Casa, PhD, ATC, FACSM,
FNATA, Korey Stringer Institute, Department of Kinesiology, University
of Connecticut, 2095 Hillside Road, U-1110, Storrs, CT 06269-1110;
E-mail: douglas.casa@uconn.edu
1537-890x/1103/115Y123
Current Sports Medicine Reports
Copyright * 2012 by the American College of Sports Medicine
www.acsm-csmr.org
Copyright © 2012 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
that a renewed emphasis is needed
across the sports medicine community.
It is the purpose of this article to review
the predisposing factors, errors in care,
physiology of CWI, and return-to-play
or duty considerations as they relate
to EHS.
Predisposing Factors
The discipline of labor, physical train-
ing, or sporting events may thrust mil-
itary personnel and athletes into tasks
that exceed exercise capacity or heat
acclimatization status. These individuals
have an increased risk in the presence of environmental,
organizational, and individual factors that predispose
humans to EHS (Table 1). Rav-Acha et al. (40) made some
important observations of 130 EHS cases, of which 6 were
fatal. Predisposing factors included low level of physical fit-
ness, sleep deprivation, high ambient temperature, intense
solar radiation, exercise intensity not matched with physi-
cal fitness, ineffective or absent medical triage, and disregard
for organizational safety regulations. Clearly, the primary
predisposing factor of EHS is complex and may vary from
case to case, but hyperthermia is always the common
denominator.
New concepts currently being investigated in the realm
EHS, found prominently in recent literature, are worthy of
further research:
1. Advancements in the use of gene chip technology
have enabled the identification of approximately
700 genes that are activated or suppressed by exer-
cise heat stress in patients who had prior EHS (47).
It is not known whether there is an upward or
downward regulation in response to exercise heat
stress, but perhaps if warfighters or athletes undergo
genome screening, the predisposing factors for EHS
may be identified by comparing normal individuals
to patients who had prior EHS.
2. Various medications negatively affect heat dissipation
and exercise performance by reducing sweat produc-
tion (e.g., antihistamines, anticholinergics), altering
Current Sports Medicine Reports 115
Table 1.
Predisposing factors for exertional heatstroke, as published by
multiple authors.
Predisposing Factors
Fever, illness, gastroenteritis, diarrhea, vomiting
(3,7,10,25,40,46)
Anhidrosis, sunburn, dehydration (3,7,10,25,40,46)
Medications, drug abuse (7,10,28,40,46)
Sleep loss (7,10,25,30,40,46)
Advanced age (7,10,25,40,46)
Excessive alcohol use (7,10,25,45)
Lack of heat acclimatization (3,7,40,46)
Sedentary lifestyle (7,10,25,46)
Overweight/obesity (10,25,39,42)
Cardiovascular dysfunction (7,10,25,46)
Hypokalemia (3,10,46)
skin blood flow (e.g., calcium channel blockers, fe-
male reproductive hormones, capsaicin), reducing
cardiac contractility (e.g., A-adrenergic or calcium
channel blockers), or increasing heat production
and/or elevating the hypothalamic set point (e.g.,
amphetamines, salicylates in large doses) (41,52).
Similarly, nutritional supplements may contain com-
pounds that negatively influence thermoregulation
and physiological function depending on the dose,
clothing worn by the individual, exercise intensity or
duration, and environmental conditions. The con-
sumption of herbal products (e.g., bitter orange) and
prescription medications (e.g., ephedrine, ecstasy)
concurrent with exercise in the heat deserves further
study.
3. An investigation involving patients who had prior
EHS identified sleep deprivation as a common pre-
disposing factor. Of 10 warfighters, 7 experienced
sleep deprivation before their EHS episode (40). The
aforementioned review (40) also reported a high
incidence of sleep deprivation among fatalities.
Although sleep deprivation is recognized to decrease
skin blood flow and sweat rate during exercise at
a given body temperature (48), little else is known
about how it might interact with EHS. Another
possible suggestion is that sleep deprivation may
cause changes in cortisol level or decrease in growth
hormone, which may play a role in temperature
regulation (30).
4. The interactions between clothing and body mor-
phology appear to be more complex than previously
recognized. In a series of controlled, randomized
experiments (4), experienced American football
players (body mass = 117.4 kg, body fat = 30.1%)
performed 70 min of exercise in a hot (33-C
(91.4-F)) environment while wearing (a) shorts with
no shirt, (b) a full American football uniform, or (c)
116 Volume 11 & Number 3 & May/June 2012
Copyright © 2012 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
a partial uniform without helmet and shoulder pads.
Interestingly, a strong positive correlation (R2 =
0.71, P = 0.005) existed between lean body mass
and the increase in rectal temperature when subjects
wore the full uniform but not the partial-clothing
ensemble. Further, a strong negative correlation
existed between total fat mass (kg) and treadmill
exercise time to the point of volitional exhaustion
when subjects wore shorts (R2 = 0.90, P = 0.00005)
and the partial uniform (R2 = 0.69, P = 0.005).
These findings are consistent with observations of
U.S. Army warfighters (8), for whom the risk of heat
illness and the use of outpatient facilities were sig-
nificantly higher among male recruits with excess
body fat.
5. Dehydration has consistently been shown to exac-
erbate increases in deep body temperature primarily
due to the reduced blood volume coupled with the
concomitant demand for blood in both the exercising
muscles and skin. Reduced blood perfusion of the
skin results in decreased evaporation, which is the
body’s most effective heat loss mechanism. Without
the balance between heat loss and heat gain, the
deep body temperature continues to rise. Increases
in deep body temperature due to dehydration have
been noted especially during exercise in the heat in
laboratory settings. In addition, despite some recent
argument that this relationship may not exist in
field settings, a recent study has shown the same
influence of dehydration in a field setting (20). It
seems the influence of free control of pace may have
eliminated the effect in previous field setting studies
(i.e., a more dehydrated person could decrease in-
tensity or a better hydrated person could increase
intensity), but when intensity is controlled (as is
the case with many coach- and supervisor-induced
activities), the role of hydration in body tempera-
ture is ever present and consistent with laboratory
findings: approximately a (0.2-C (0.36-F)) increase
for every 1% deficit in body weight (11,34,44).
Why They Die: Errors in Care
The reality of EHS medical care within the confines of
organized sport and military training scenarios is that no
one should die if proper, prompt, and aggressive care begins
within 10 min of collapse (9,13,17,19,49). Unfortunately,
many athletes, warfighters, and laborers who sustain EHS
have fatal outcomes. A review of the causes of death pro-
vides a window into the common errors in care. With an
understanding of these primal concepts, we can work toward
a medical delivery system for EHS that eliminates such
common errors.
Inaccurate Temperature Assessment or Misdiagnosis
The diagnosis of EHS usually follows the presentation
of two hallmark criteria: extreme hyperthermia (usually
940.0-C to 40.6-C (104-F to 105-F)) at the time of collapse,
and CNS dysfunction, as characterized by altered behavior
(not necessarily a complete loss of consciousness, especially
Exertional Heat Stroke
initially) (3,9,13,17). Given that lucid intervals of varying
degrees may be part of an acute EHS episode, it is impera-
tive to accurately determine deep body temperature as soon
as possible after the EHS presents (13,17). To properly as-
sess temperature in a person who has been performing
intense exercise in the heat, the temperature measurement
must be taken from within the body, and it must not be
affected by external influences such as sweat, fluids, wind,
clothing, etc. The literature has clearly shown that axillary,
tympanic (aural), temporal, oral, and skin measurements
are not valid or reliable predictors of deep body temperature
(9,13,16,17,26,42,49). In many cases, these temperatures
may provide a false sense of security (because they nearly
always under predict temperature) regarding the level of
hyperthermia and therefore the severity of the condition
(16,26). Medical staff should rely on rectal temperature for
a clear picture of the degree of acute hyperthermia
(3,9,13,17,49). Although other modes of temperature assess-
ment (i.e., esophageal, pulmonary artery) are effective in
tracking rapid changes in central core temperature, they are
not practical in a field assessment scenario for EHS (15).
Rectal temperature assessment has been part of the successful
EHS care at the Falmouth Road Race, Peachtree Road Race,
Quantico Naval Base, Parris Island Marine Base, and Marine
Corps Marathon, among many other sites (B. Cooper, per-
sonal communication, 2009; Casa DJ et al., unpublished
manuscript/observations, 2012) (1,23,37). In addition, the
clinical presentation of EHS can be very similar to that of
other medical conditions (e.g., exertional sickling, hypo-
natremia, heat exhaustion (HE), asthma, head injury), but a
prompt and accurate rectal temperature assessment can
immediately rule in EHS (3,14).
No Care or Treatment Delayed
In many circumstances, especially when appropriate med-
ical personnel (i.e., athletic trainers, team physicians) are
not present, EHS victims are simply allowed to lie on the
side of the playing field, locker room, or gymnasium. Those
supervising assume that the condition is not as serious as it
really is and that the athlete will recover on his or her own
with rest. Failure to recognize the presence of EHS has been
a common problem in high school sports. This scenario dem-
onstrates two important needs: having qualified medical per-
sonnel on-site and not placing coaches in charge of medical
care (3,14).
Inefficient Cooling Modality
Even if EHS is promptly recognized at the time of the
incident, an athlete can still succumb if extreme hyperther-
mia is not rapidly reduced. The most important determinant
of EHS outcome is the amount of time the patient is above
some hypothetical critical threshold for cell damage (18,27).
The exact initial temperature (probably in the range of
40.6-C (105-F) to 43-C (109.4-F)) is not the most impor-
tant item, but reducing temperature to less than 40.0-C
(104-F) in less than 30 min is critical. Experiences from
various military installations (Quantico, Parris Island, Fort
Benning) and medical tents (Falmouth Road Race, Peachtree
Road Race, Marine Corps Marathon, Boston Marathon) have
shown that if temperature is reduced to less than 40.0-C
(104-F) within 30 min after collapse, the fatality rate is close
www.acsm-csmr.org
Copyright © 2012 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
to (or actually) zero (B. Cooper, personal communication;
Casa DJ et al., unpublished manuscript/observations, 2012)
(1,3,19,23,37). We have located no record of any EHS vic-
tim who died when this standard was met (19). The ‘‘golden
hour’’ common to medicine has become the golden half-
hour in the realm of EHS.
Thus, two very important concepts are introduced: 1) the
cooling modality needs to be immediately accessible and 2)
the cooling modality must cool rapidly enough to meet the
time criterion. The gold standard for rapid cooling is CWI.
This includes immersion in very cold (1.7-C to 14.0-C (35-F
to 57-F)) or ice water over as much of the body as possible
(except the head), constant and aggressive stirring of the
water to keep bringing cold water to the skin’s surface, and
an ice or wet towel wrapped around the top of the head (19).
Cooling of this type (discussed in more detail below) has
yielded significantly high cooling rates, lowering temper-
atures of even 43.3-C (110-F) to less than 40.0-C (104-F) in
G20 min (19). Given that bringing the athlete to the tank
and doing the initial assessment (checking airway, breathing,
and circulation, placing rectal probe) takes only minutes, the
critical 30-min timeline will be met. A readily portable
alternative to CWI for scenarios of remote care (or when a
tub is not accessible or prepared) is the rotation of ice or wet
towels (3). Approximately 12 towels can be kept in a tub of
ice water, and 6 towels can be placed on the patient who has
EHS. After a few minutes, the six towels from the tub can be
placed on the patient while the others are recooled. Two
items should still be remembered when using this method:
1) if possible, the ice- or wet-towel system should be used
until an immersion tub is ready or until transport to an
immersion tub, and 2) emergency medical technicians should
continue aggressive cooling during transport (instead of
simply placing ice bags on peripheral arteries).
Immediate Transport (and/or Waiting for Transport)
One of the more controversial aspects of EHS care is the
concept of ‘‘cool first, transport second’’ (13,16,19). This
motto is based on the premise that the most important
component of EHS care is the rapid cooling that should take
place as soon as possible after the incident occurs (3,18).
Waiting for an ambulance to arrive and transport the patient
to the hospital can result in a delay of at least 45 min (even in
optimal conditions: 5 min to determine the condition, 10 min
for an ambulance to arrive, 10 min on-site, 10 min to the
hospital, 10 min at the hospital before aggressive cooling
begins) during which aggressive cooling could have taken
place. Instead, we encourage taking 20 min to use CWI for
rapid cooling of the patient on-site and then immediately
transporting to the hospital (13,19). Transport occurs when
temperature is (38.9-C to 40.0-C (102-F to 104-F)). This
recommendation does not discount the potential for out-
standing care at the hospital but rather prioritizes appro-
priate care in the first 30 min after collapse, which is likely
more critical to survival.
Rapid Return to Play or Duty
When an individual succumbs to heat illness, no matter
the severity, a few items should be addressed before re-
turning to normal daily work or the exercise training regimen.
First, the cause of the condition should be determined. If it is
Current Sports Medicine Reports 117
an item (e.g., predisposing factor, situational characteristic)
that can be altered (e.g., heat acclimatization, appropriate
intensity of exercise based on fitness, illness, sleep status,
hydration status), this should be done before return
(12,31). Second, sufficient time needs to pass to allow for
full recovery from the incident itself, which varies based on
the severity of the condition (described in more detail
below) (12,31). Third, when the athlete returns to activity,
his or her teammates or fellow warfighters will likely be
better conditioned and acclimatized and more skill ready
than when the original incident occurred, which may force
the patient who has EHS to work harder to keep up with
his or her compatriots (12). This is an important factor to
consider in the rehabilitation process. Fourth, medical care
may require further confirmation to determine whether the
athlete or warfighter may return to activity or duty. One
possible tool maybe heat tolerance testing to examine the
athlete or warfighter’s ability to mitigate the rise of internal
body temperature and cardiovascular function (35).
Physiology of Cooling Modalities for Treatment of EHS
Under a hyperthermic state, effective heat dissipation is
facilitated by elevated levels of skin perfusion and sweating;
however, whole-body heat loss can be severely compro-
mised in individuals experiencing EHS. Under these con-
ditions, cooling treatments that enhance heat dissipation by
increasing conductive heat transfer and/or evaporative heat
loss are critical for the survival of the EHS victim. Current
empirical evidence clearly demonstrates that CWI is a superior
cooling modality, with ice water immersion (IWI) providing
some of the highest core temperature cooling rates V an
important element in surviving EHS (3,9,19,23,38).
To date, there remains some disagreement regarding the
optimal water temperature that should be used. This is prob-
ably the result of large variations in cooling rates and water
temperatures in previous studies. Differences in subjects’
physical characteristics (29) and immersion conditions (i.e.,
water circulation, full- vs partial-body immersion) (5,21) may,
in part, explain variations in cooling rates. Despite these var-
iations, only CWI or IWI has provided consistently superior
core cooling rates (0.12 to 0.35-CIminj1) (3,9,19,23,32,38)
(Table 2) compared with other cooling modalities such as
ice-wet towels (0.11-CIminj1), ice packs over major arteries
(0.028-CIminj1), or fanning (0.02-CIminj1) (32). For a
more comprehensive discussion of the different methods
of cooling, the reader is referred to a review by McDermott
et al. (32).
The study by Proulx et al. (39) is the only study comparing
cooling rates for a large range of water temperatures (i.e.,
2-C to 20-C (35.6-F to 68.0-F)) in subjects rendered hyper-
thermic by prolonged exercise in the heat (end-exercise rectal
temperature of 40-C). After exercise, the subjects were im-
mersed in a circulated water bath controlled at 2-C, 8-C,
14-C, or 20-C until rectal temperature returned to 37.5-C.

Table 2.
Mean cooling rates using water immersion.

Type of Immersion Author Water Temperature Cooling Rate (-CIminj1)

IWI Lemire et al. (29) 2-C (35.6-F), malesa 0.12
a
2-C (35.6-F), females 0.22
Proulx et al. (38) 2-C (35.6-F) 0.35
Costrinia,b (23) 1-C to 3-C (33.8-F to 37.4-F) 0.15
b
Armstrong et al. (5) 1-C to 3-C (33.8-F to 37.4-F) 0.20
Clements et al. (22) 5-C (41.0-F) 0.16
CWI Lemire et al. (29) 8-C (46.4-F), low body fat (13%) 0.23
8-C (46.4-F), high body fat (22%) 0.20
Proulx et al. (38) 8-C (46.4-F) 0.19
Clapp et al. (21) 10-C to 12-C (50.0-F to 53.6-F), torso only 0.25
10-C to 12-C (50.0-F to 53.6-F), limbs only 0.16
Kielblock (28) 12-C (53.6-F) 0.26
Taylor et al. (50) 14-C (57.2-F) 0.18
Proulx et al. (38) 14-C (57.2-F) 0.15
Clements et al. (22) 14-C (57.2-F) 0.16
Wyndham et al. (53) 14.4-C (57.9-C) 0.04
Temperate-water immersion Proulx et al. (38) 20-C (68.0-F) 0.19
Taylor et al. (50) 26-C (78.8-F) 0.10
a
Water immersion combined with skin massage.
b
Data obtained during field treatment.
CWI = cold water immersion; IWI = ice water immersion.

118 Volume 11 & Number 3 & May/June 2012 Exertional Heat Stroke

Copyright © 2012 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Rectal temperature cooling rate during immersion in water
of 8-C (46.4-F), 14-C (57.2-F), and 20-C (68.0-F) averaged
0.15 to 0.19-CIminj1. These values were consistent with
the findings of Clements et al. (22), who reported similar
rates of cooling (0.16-CIminj1) during a 12-min CWI (14-C
(57.2-F)) immersion. Noteworthy, Clements et al. (22)
showed that 5-C (41.0-F) IWI also yielded similar rates
of cooling (i.e., 0.16-CIminj1). In contrast, however, Proulx
et al. (38) showed that 2-C (35.6-F) IWI produced a rectal
temperature cooling rate approximately twice that of warmer
Q8-C (46.4-F) water temperatures (i.e., 0.35-CIminj1 in 2-C
(35.6-F) IWI vs 0.19, 0.15, 0.19-CIminj1 in 8-C, 14-C, and
20-C water, respectively).
The mean rectal temperature cooling rate obtained during
2-C (35.6-F) IWI (0.35-CIminj1, (0.63-FIminj1)) by Proulx
et al. (38) exceeded rates reported by Armstrong et al. (3)
(0.20-CIminj1) and Costrini et al. (24) (0.15-CIminj1)
(also measured during IWI at 1-C to 3-C (33.8-F to 37.4-F))
by 1.8- and 2.3-fold, respectively. This can be explained by
some important differences between the studies. First, the
latter two studies were performed in the field and involved
distance runners (5) and military personnel (23) experiencing
EHS, with rectal temperatures exceeding 41-C (105.8-F).
Further, in the case of Armstrong et al. (5), the patients only
had their torsos and upper thighs in the water, thereby
limiting the potential for heat loss. Clapp et al. (21) showed
that immersion of the torso only (lying supine in a small
wading pooling with legs and arms out) in 10-C to 12-C
(50.0-F to 53.6-F) water resulted in a rectal tempera-
ture cooling rate of 0.25-CIminj1 compared with only
0.16-CIminj1 for leg and arm immersion only (seated up-
right with arm and leg only in a container filled with water).
Water circulation is also an important consideration. Con-
vection can influence the rate at which an individual cools,
by dispersing the boundary layer of water adjacent to the
skin and thereby maintaining the thermal gradient essential
for heat dissipation. A slower cooling rate would therefore
be expected in still water. For example, Wyndham et al. (53)
reported a cooling rate of only 0.04-CIminj1 in individuals
immersed in a noncirculated water bath of (14-C (57.2-F)),
whereas Proulx et al. (38) measured a cooling rate of
0.15-CIminj1 for the same immersion temperature with
circulated water.
The misconception that CWI may cause peripheral vaso-
constriction and intense shivering, thereby impeding cooling
efficiency and affecting patient comfort, has some experts
advocating the use of temperate-water (26-C (78.8-F)) im-
mersion as providing a result equivalent to that of IWI or
CWI (18,50). Recent evidence by Proulx et al. (38) clearly
suggests otherwise. They reported that the temperature gra-
dient between the skin surface and the water at the end of a
2-C (35.6-F) IWI was 1.8, 2.5, and 2.6 times greater than
during the 8-C (46.4-F), 14-C (57.2-F), and 20-C (68.0-F)
water immersions, respectively. We interpret these findings
to mean that the large temperature gradient between the
skin and ice water eliminates the need for elevated skin
perfusion (5). The short duration of exposure during IWI
also minimizes the effect of increased heat production via
shivering thermogenesis. Shivering was seldom observed
when hyperthermic individuals were immersed in 2-C
(35.6-F) ice water (29,38). Finally, although subject com-
www.acsm-csmr.org
Copyright © 2012 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
fort should not be the basis for determining the effectiveness
of a treatment strategy in a medical emergency, Proulx et al.
(38) reported that 2-C (35.6-F) IWI was no more painful or
uncomfortable for the subjects than the warmer water
immersion temperatures (i.e., Q8-C (46.4-F)). Moreover, no
cold-shock response (i.e., potentially lethal responses
including hyperventilation, cardiac arrhythmias, elevated
blood pressure, reduced cerebral blood flow, etc., that can
occur with sudden immersion in cold water) (51) was
observed.
Recently, Taylor et al. (50) argued that rapid and effective
heat loss in the absence of an elevated skin-water gradient
can still be achieved using temperate-water immersion
(26-C (78.8-F)) while avoiding the ‘‘cold-shock’’ responses
(43) associated with IWI (18). Their study compared core
cooling rates in an individual rendered hyperthermic by
exercise in the heat while wearing a water-perfused suit
circulated with 40-C water during subsequent exposure
to cool ambient air conditions (20-C to 22-C (68-F to
71.6-F)), CWI (14-C (57.2-F)), and temperate-water
immersion (26-C (78.8-F)). They suggested that, relative to
IWI, immersion in temperate water (26-C (78.8-F)) reduces
skin vasoconstriction (i.e., greater level of skin perfusion
relative to IWI) sufficiently to maintain heat extraction and
lower core temperature to safe levels at a similar rate (i.e.,
2.16 and 2.99 min to bring esophageal temperature to
37.5-C (99.5-F) for 14 and 26-C water immersion, respec-
tively) (50). Based on actual skin temperature measure-
ments (cold = 21.2-C, temperate = 26.8-C) and the
assumption that skin perfusion achieves minimal and max-
imal levels at 10-C and 42-C, the authors surmised that
circulatory convective heat transfer to the skin was 1.15-
fold greater during the 26-C water immersion as compared
to IWI. As such, they concluded that the similarity in the rate
of esophageal temperature decay measured during 14-C
(0.88-CIminj1) and 26-C (0.71-CIminj1) water immersion
was due to the less powerful peripheral vasoconstrictor
responses, resulting in physiologically and clinically insig-
nificant differences in the rate of heat extraction in hyper-
thermic individuals between trials. However, they failed to
consider that, while esophageal temperature dropped to
37.5-C (99.5-F) with a shorter immersion time, significant
residual body heat storage (È50% of heat accumulated dur-
ing exercise) likely remained in organs, with a corresponding
elevated rectal temperature of È39-C to 39.5-C (102.2-F
to 103.1-F) (38). Rectal temperature cooling rate was only
0.10-CIminj1 during 26-C (78.8-F) water immersion, at
least three times slower than the 0.35-CIminj1 measured by
Proulx et al. (38) during 2-C (35.6-F) IWI. Moreover, CWI
can minimize variations in cooling rate caused by differ-
ences in physical characteristics compared with warmer water
temperatures (29).
The most important element in the treatment of EHS is
rapid cooling. Current empirical evidence clearly demon-
strates that CWI is a superior cooling modality, with IWI
providing some of the highest core temperature cooling
rates V an important element in surviving EHS. By adher-
ing to the established cooling limits for CWI (i.e., exit rectal
temperature of 38.6-C (101.5-F)) during immersion in water
G10-C (50.0-F) (39), safe and effective treatment for hyper-
thermic individuals can be provided.
Current Sports Medicine Reports 119
Return to Play/Duty after EHS
Return-to-play (RTP) decision making can be a complex
and demanding process and is arguably the most challenging
component of athlete injury management (2). Although the
final decision is most commonly left to the providing physi-
cian, the assessments frequently require the input of and
execution by the athletic trainer, physical therapist, coach,
and family members, as well as the athlete. An American
College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) guideline on RTP iden-
tified several key considerations to assist in safely returning
athletes to activity (2):
& Status of anatomical and functional healing;
& Status of recovery from acute illness and associated
sequelae;
& Status of chronic injury or illness;
& Whether the athlete poses an undue risk to the safety
of other participants;
& Restoration of sport-specific skills;
& Psychosocial readiness;
& Ability to perform safely with equipment modifica-
tion, bracing, and orthoses;
& Compliance with applicable federal, state, local,
school, and governing body regulations.
The RTP decision making process ultimately requires
a fundamental understanding of both the pathophysiology
of the underlying disorder and the recovery of affected tis-
sues, organs, and/or body systems. EHS RTP is especially
challenging because of our incomplete understanding of the
pathophysiological processes involved in the development
of and recovery from this disorder (15,31). Current research
indicates that most individuals recover completely from EHS
within a few weeks; indeed, this occurs in most patients when
treated promptly and cooled aggressively (i.e., IWI) (6,15,31).
However, while most athletes and warfighters with EHS
will recover and successfully return to play/duty, some EHS
victims experience long-term complications that may include
multisystem organ (liver, kidney, and muscle) and neurologic
damage as well as reduced exercise capacity and heat intol-
erance (15,33,43,45).
Despite the frequency of EHS, and the associated mor-
bidity and mortality, current civilian and military RTP guide-
lines for a particular athlete are largely based on anecdotal
observation and caution (1,31,37). At this time, guidelines
and recommendations for returning athletes/warfighters to
play/duty are based on limited evidence. Most guidelines are
common-sense recommendations that require an asymptom-
atic state and normal laboratory findings, targeting end organs
such as the liver and kidney, coupled with a cautious reintro-
duction of activity and gradual heat acclimatization. Current
suggestions vary widely from 7 d to 15 months before EHS
victims return to full activity (3). This lack of consistency
and clinical agreement can negatively affect athletes and war-
fighters and force medical providers to guess what the best
solution for each individual may be, directly influencing mil-
itary force readiness. Whereas current guidance states that
patients who have EHS may return to practice and compe-
tition when they have reestablished heat tolerance, clear
clinical definitions of heat tolerance and intolerance are dis-
120 Volume 11 & Number 3 & May/June 2012
Copyright © 2012 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
tinctly lacking. In addition, the role of heat tolerance testing
and the potential effect of EHS on the thermoregulatory
system are areas of scientific question and controversy (25).
This lack of clear evidence-based guidance has limited
sports medicine professionals in making prudent RTP deci-
sions when confronted with a patient with EHS. While
clinicians can use basic hematologic parameters and blood
chemistries to assess a return to normal of renal, hepatic,
and coagulation functions, it is more challenging to consider
recovery of potential exercise-heat tolerance deficits, neuro-
psychological impairments, or the altered fitness/acclimati-
zation status (6,33,43). RTP after EHS should, as in any
other injury, involve a carefully planned and progressively
increased physical challenge that is closely supervised by an
athletic trainer and physician, as previously identified in the
ACSM conference statement (2,36). Clinicians should
additionally remember that, as athletes rejoin colleagues on
the athletic field, their training level, as well as their heat
tolerance, may well be behind that of their peers; accord-
ingly, caution is warranted. Although definitive high-level
evidence-based guidelines regarding RTP do not presently
exist, the current recommendations are summarized below.
Current Civilian Recommendations
The following summary of RTP guidelines set forth by the
ACSM provides a rational process for guiding athletes who
are returning to training and competition after EHS (3).
1. Refrain from exercise for at least 7 d after release
from medical care;
2. Follow up about 1 wk after incident for a physical
examination and laboratory testing or diagnostic im-
aging of the affected organs, based on the clinical
course of the heat stroke (HS) incident;
3. When cleared for return to activity, begin exer-
cise in a cool environment and gradually increase
the duration, intensity, and heat exposure during
2 wk to demonstrate heat tolerance and to initiate
acclimatization;
4. If return to vigorous activity is not accomplished
during 4 wk, a laboratory exercise-heat tolerance test
should be considered;
5. If heat tolerant, the athlete is cleared for full com-
petition between 2 and 4 wk after the return to full
training.
Current Army Recommendations
The military services do not share consensus recommen-
dations on returning soldiers to duty after sustaining exer-
tional heat illness (37). Accordingly, an ACSM roundtable of
military and civilian experts was convened at the Uniformed
Services University of the Health Sciences (Bethesda, MD) in
2008 to address inconsistencies (36). Key findings included
the need for clearly defined terms, identification of neces-
sary research, and emphasis on early intervention, which
directly influences a warfighter’s capability to return to
duty. Consequently, participants agreed that exertional heat
illness cases require individualized risk stratification based
on treatment and observed complications.
Exertional Heat Stroke
 This conference assisted the Army Medical Department
in moving forward with new consensus definitions for HE,
heat injury (HI), and HS. The group specifically defined HS
as a syndrome of hyperthermia (core temperature at time of
event usually (Q40-C (104-F)), collapse or debilitation, and
encephalopathy (delirium, stupor, or coma) occurring dur-
ing or immediately after exertion or significant heat expo-
sure. HS can be complicated by organ and/or tissue injury,
systemic inflammatory activation, and disseminated intra-
vascular coagulation.
Participants agreed that, after an episode of HS, all af-
fected warfighters should be placed on a temporary medical
profile (i.e., removed from duty) for 2 wk. For the purpose
of further profile and medical evaluation board (MEB) de-
termination, the warfighter should be reassessed weekly for
the presence or absence of complications and contributing
risk factor(s). The warfighter will then be classified into one
of the following three categories:
1. HS without sequelae: all clinical signs and symp-
toms resolved by 2 wk after the event;
2. HS with sequelae: evidence of cognitive or behavioral
dysfunction, renal impairment, hepatic dysfunction,
rhabdomyolysis, or other related condition that does
not completely resolve within 2 wk of the event;
3. Complex HS: recurrent, or occurring in the presence
of a nonmodifiable risk factor, either known (e.g.,
chronic skin condition, such as eczema or burn skin
graft) or suspected (e.g., sickle cell trait, malignant
hyperthermia susceptibility).
Using this guidance, the physician can then make a pru-
dent recommendation regarding who may return to duty
and who may require an MEB assessment with subse-
quent medical discharge from military service. This policy
guidance is illustrated in Table 3 and further described at
http://champ.usuhs.mil/chclinicaltools.html.

Table 3.
Profile progression recommendations for the soldier with HS, or HE, HI, pending MEB.

HS without Complex HS or HE/HI

Profile Code* Restrictionsa Sequelae HS with Sequelae Pending MEB
T-4 (P) Complete duty restrictions 2 wk 2 wk minimum; advance 2 wk minimum;
when clinically resolved advance when
clinically resolved
T-3 (P) Physical training and running/walking/ 1 mo minimum 2 mo minimum Pending MEB
swimming/bicycling at own pace and
distance not to exceed 60 minIdj1
No maximal effort; no APFT; no
wearing of IBA; no MOPP gear; no
marching with rucksack
No AO
T-3 (P) Gradual acclimatization (TB Med 507). 1 mo minimum 2 mo minimumb N/A
No maximal effort; no APFT; no MOPP
level IV gear; IBA limited to static
range participation
May march at own pace/distance with
rucksack weighing no more than 30 lb
Nontactical AO permitted
T-2 (P) Continue gradual acclimatization N/A Pending completion of N/A
30-d heat exposure
May participate in unit physical training;
requirement, if not
CBRN training with MOPP gear for up
accomplished during
to 30 min; IBA on static and dynamic
prior observation periodb
ranges for up to 45 min; no recorded
APFT; march with rucksack at own
pace/distance with no more than
30 lb, up to 2 h
Nontactical AO permitted
a
Warfighters manifesting no heat illness symptoms or work intolerance after completion of profile restrictions can advance and return to duty
without an MEB determination. Any evidence/manifestation of heat illness symptoms during the period of the profile requires an MEB referral.
b
HS with sequelae return to full duty requires a minimum period of heat exposure during environmental stress (heat category 2 during the majority
of included days).
T = temporary profile, P = physical category P (PULHES).
HS = heat stroke; HE = heat exposure; HI = heat injury; MEB = medical evaluation board; AO = airborne operations, APFT = Army physical fitness
test, IBA = individual body armor, MOPP = mission-oriented protective posture, CBRN = chemical, biologic, radiologic, nuclear.

www.acsm-csmr.org Current Sports Medicine Reports 121

Copyright © 2012 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Conclusions
Proper recognition and understanding of the predispos-
ing factors, errors in care, physiology of CWI, and return-
to-play/duty considerations are critical to the appropriate
prevention and care of EHS. A wide range of predisposing
factors have been identified such as physical fitness, sleep
deprivation, exercise intensity not matched with physical
fitness, ineffective or absent medical triage, and disregard
for organizational safety regulations; however, the primary
predisposing factor of EHS is complex. EHS deaths are
easily avoidable when accurate temperature assessment,
prompt aggressive treatment using an efficient cooling mo-
dality (i.e., CWI or IWI) prior to transport, and medically
supervised return to play/duty occurs.
The authors declare no conflict of interest and do not have
any financial disclosures.
References
1. Adams W. Return to Play Following Exertional Heat Stroke in the U.S.
Marine Corps. Paper presented at: American Medical Athletic Association
Marine Corps Marathon Medical Meeting, October 27Y28, 2006.
2. American College of Sports Medicine. The team physician and return-
to-play issues: a consensus statement. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2002; 34:
1212Y4.
3. Armstrong LE, Casa DJ, Millard-Stafford M, et al. American College of
Sports Medicine position stand: exertional heat illness during training and
competition. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2007; 39:556Y72.
4. Armstrong LE, Johnson EC, Casa DJ, et al. The American football uniform:
uncompensable heat stress and hyperthermic exhaustion. J. Athl. Train.
2010; 45:117Y27.
5. Armstrong LE, Crago AE, Adams R, et al. Whole-body cooling of hyper-
thermic runners: comparison of two field therapies. Am. J. Emerg. Med.
1996; 14:355Y8.
6. Armstrong LE, Maresh CM. Can humans avoid and recover from exer-
tional heat stroke? In: Pandol KB, Singal PK, editors. Adaptation Biology and
Medicine. New Delhi (India): Narosa Publishing House; 1999. p. 334Y51.
7. Armstrong LE, De Luca JP, Hubbard RW. Time course of recovery and heat
acclimation ability of prior exertional heatstroke patients. Med. Sci. Sports
Exerc. 1990; 22:36Y48.
8. Bedno SA, Li Y, Han W, et al. Exertional heat illness among overweight
U.S. Army recruits in basic training. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 2010; 81:
107Y11.
9. Binkley HM, Beckett J, Casa DJ, et al. National Athletic Trainers’ Associa-
tion position statement: exertional heat illnesses. J. Athl. Train. 2002; 37:
329Y43.
10. Bouchama A, Knochel JP. Heat stroke. N. Engl. J. Med. 2002; 346:1978Y88.
11. Buono MJ, Wall AJ. Effect of hypohydration on core temperature during exercise
in temperate and hot environments. Pflugers Arch. 2000; 440:476Y80.
12. Casa D. Don’t gamble: complex considerations regarding return to play
following exertional heat stroke. J. Sports. Rehabil. 2007; 16:161Y2.
13. Casa D, Almquist A, Anderson S, et al. Inter-Association Task Force on
Exertional Heat Illness consensus statement. NATA News. 2003; 24Y9.
14. Casa D, Pagnotta K, Pinkus D, Mazerolle S. Should coaches be in charge of
care for medical emergencies in high school sport? Athl. Train. Sports Health
Care. 2009; 1:144Y6.
15. Casa DJ, Armstrong LE, Ganio MS, Yeargin SW. Exertional heat stroke in
competitive athletes. Curr. Sports. Med. Rep. 2005; 4:309Y17.
16. Casa DJ, Becker SM, Ganio MS, et al. Validity of devices that assess body
temperature during outdoor exercise in the heat. J. Athl. Train. 2007; 42:
333Y42.
17. Casa DJ, Guskiewicz K, Anderson SA, et al. National Athletic Trainers’
Association Position Statement: preventing sudden death in sport. J. Athl.
Train. 2012; 47:96Y118.
18. Casa DJ, Kenny GP, Taylor NAS. Immersion treatment for exertional
hyperthermia: cold or temperate water? Med. Sci. Sports. Exerc. 2010; 42:
1246Y52.
122 Volume 11 & Number 3 & May/June 2012
Copyright © 2012 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
19. Casa DJ, McDermott BP, Lee EC, et al. Cold water immersion: the gold
standard for exertional heatstroke treatment. Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. 2007; 35:
141Y9.
20. Casa DJ, Stearns RL, Lopez RM, et al. Influence of hydration on physio-
logical function and performance during trail running in the heat. J. Athl.
Train. 2010; 45:147Y56.
21. Clapp AJ, Bishop PA, Muir I, Walker JL. Rapid cooling techniques in jog-
gers experiencing heat strain. J. Sci. Med. Sport. 2001; 4:160Y7.
22. Clements JM, Casa DJ, Knight J, et al. Ice-water immersion and cold-water
immersion provide similar cooling rates in runners with exercise-induced
hyperthermia. J. Athl. Train. 2002; 37:146Y50.
23. Costrini A. Emergency treatment of exertional heatstroke and comparison
of whole body cooling techniques. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 1990; 22:15Y8.
24. Costrini AM, Pitt HA, Gustafson AB, Uddin DE. Cardiovascular and meta-
bolic manifestations of heat stroke and severe heat exhaustion. Am. J. Med.
1979; 66:296Y302.
25. Epstein Y. Heat intolerance: predisposing factor or residual injury? Med. Sci.
Sports Exerc. 1990; 22:29Y35.
26. Ganio MS, Brown CM, Casa DJ, et al. Validity and reliability of devices that
assess body temperature during indoor exercise in the heat. J. Athl. Train.
2009; 44:124Y35.
27. Hubbard RW, Bowers WD, Matthew WT, et al. Rat model of acute heat-
stroke mortality. J Appl. Physiol. 1977; 42:809Y16.
28. Keilblock A. Strategies for the prevention of heat disorders with particular
reference to body cooling procedures. In: Hales JRS, Richards DAB, editors.
Heat Stress: Physiological Exertion and Environment. Amsterdam (The
Netherlands): Excerpta Medica; 1987. p. 489Y97.
29. Lemire B, Gagnon D, Jay O, Kenny, GP. Differences between sexes in rectal
cooling rates after exercise-induced hyperthermia. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.
2009; 41:1633Y9.
30. Lieberman HR, Bathalon GP, Falco CM. Severe decrements in cognition
function and mood induced by sleep loss, heat, dehydration and under-
nutrition during simulated combat. Biol. Psychiatry. 2005; 57:422Y9.
31. McDermott BP, Casa DJ, Yeargin SW, et al. Recovery and return to activ-
ity following exertional heat stroke: considerations for the sports medicine
staff. J. Sport Rehabil. 2007; 16:163Y81.
32. McDermott BP, Casa DJ, Ganio MS, et al. Acute whole-body cooling for
exercise-induced hyperthermia: a systematic review. J. Athl. Train. 2009;
44:84Y93.
33. Mehta AC, Baker RN. Persistent neurological deficits in heat stroke. Neu-
rology. 1970; 20:336Y40.
34. Montain SJ, Coyle EF. Influence of graded dehydration on hyperthermia and
cardiovascular drift during exercise. J. Appl. Physiol. 1992; 73:1340Y50.
35. Moran DS, Erlich T, Epstein Y. The heat tolerance test: an efficient screening
tool for evaluating susceptibility to heat. J. Sport Rehabil. 2007; 16:215Y21.
36. O’Connor FG, Casa DJ, Bergeron MF, et al. American College of Sports
Medicine roundtable on exertional heat strokeVreturn to duty/return to
play: conference proceedings. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2010; 9:314Y21.
37. O’Connor FG, Williams AD, Blivin S, et al. Guidelines for return to duty
(play) after heat illness: a military perspective. J. Sport Rehabil. 2007;
16:227Y37.
38. Proulx CI, Ducharme MB, Kenny GP. Effect of water temperature on cool-
ing efficiency during hyperthermia in humans. J. Appl. Physiol. 2003; 94:
1317Y23.
39. Proulx CI, Ducharme MB, Kenny GP. Safe cooling limits from exercise-
induced hyperthermia. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2006; 96:434Y45.
40. Rav-Acha M, Hadad E, Epstein Y, et al. Fatal exertional heat stroke: a case
series. Am. J. Med. Sci. 2004; 328:84Y7.
41. Roelands B, Hasegawa H, Watson P, et al. The effects of acute dopamine
reuptake inhibition on performance. Med. Sci. Sports. Exerc. 2008; 40:
879Y85.
42. Ronneberg K, Roberts WO, McBean AD, Center BA. Temporal artery tem-
perature measurements do not detect hyperthermic marathon runners. Med.
Sci. Sports Exerc. 2008; 40:1373Y5.
43. Royburt M, Epstein Y, Solomon Z, Shemer J. Long-term psychological and
physiological effects of heat stroke. Physiol. Behav. 1993; 54:265Y7.
44. Sawka MN, Young AJ, Francesconi RP, et al. Thermoregulatory and blood
responses during exercise at graded hypohydration levels. J. Appl. Physiol.
1985; 59:1394Y401.
45. Shapiro Y, Magazanik A, Udassin R, et al. Heat intolerance in former heat-
stroke patients. Ann. Intern. Med. 1979; 90:913Y6.
46. Shibolet S, Lancaster MC, Danon Y. Heat stroke: a review. Aviat. Space
Environ. Med. 1976; 47:280Y301.
Exertional Heat Stroke
47. Sonna LA, Wenger CB, Flinn S, et al. Exertional heat injury and gene
expression changes: a DNA microarray analysis study. J. Appl. Physiol.
2004; 96:1943Y53.
48. Stephenson L, Kolka M. Effect of gender, circadian period and sleep loss on
thermal responses during exercise. In: Pandolf KB, Sawka MN, Gonzalez RR,
editors. Human Performance Physiology and Environmental Medicine at
Terrestrial Extremes. Indianapolis (IN): Benchmark Press; 1988. p. 267Y304.
49. Stearns RL, Casa DJ, O’Connor FG, Kenny GP. Exertional heat stroke. In:
Casa, DJ, editor. Preventing Sudden Death in Sport and Physical Activity.
Sudbury (MA): Jones and Bartlett; 2012, p. 53Y73.
www.acsm-csmr.org
Copyright © 2012 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
50. Taylor NAS, Caldwell JN, Van den Heuvel AMJ, Patterson MJ. To cool, but
not too cool: that is the question V immersion cooling for hyperthermia.
Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2008; 40:1962Y9.
51. Tipton MJ. The initial responses to cold-water immersion in man. Clin. Sci.
1989; 77:581Y8.
52. Watson P, Hasegawa H, Roelands B, et al. Acute dopamine/
noradrenaline reuptake inhibition enhances human exercise performance in
warm, but not temperate conditions. J. Physiol. (Lond.). 2005; 565(Pt 3):873Y83.
53. Wyndam CH, Strydom NB, Cooke HM, et al. Methods of cooling subjects
with hyperpyrexia. J. Appl. Physiol. 1959; 14:771Y6.
Current Sports Medicine Reports 123