Body position influences arterial occlusion pressure: implications for the standardization of pressure during blood flow restricted exercise

Impact of limb occlusion pressure assessment position on performance, cardiovascular, and perceptual responses in blood flow restricted low-load resistance exercise: A randomized crossover trial

This study investigated the effect of limb occlusion pressure (LOP) position on exercise performance, cardiovascular responses, and perceptual experiences during seated bilateral leg extensions with and without blood flow restriction (BFR). Thirty resistance-trained males (age: 22 ± 2 years; weight: 74.4 ± 13.6 kg; height: 177.4 ± 6.4 cm; BMI: 23.5 ± 3.3 kg/m2) participated. Each performed exercise to failure (4 sets, 30% 1RM, 1 min rest) in three conditions: Supine LOP-BFR, Seated LOP-BFR, and no-BFR. BFR was applied at 60% LOP. Significant interaction effects were found for RPE (p = 0.021, d = 0.76), RPD (p < 0.01, d = 1.72), and DOMS (p < 0.01, d = 2.28). Statistically significant fewer repetitions were completed in Supine LOP-BFR vs. no-BFR (p < 0.01, d = 0.5), Seated LOP-BFR vs. no-BFR (p < 0.01, d = 1.0), and Seated LOP-BFR vs. Supine LOP-BFR (p < 0.01, d = 0.6). RPE was higher in Seated LOP-BFR vs. no-BFR (p < 0.01, d = 0.52). RPD was higher in Supine LOP-BFR vs. no-BFR (p < 0.01, d = 0.62) and Seated LOP-BFR vs. no-BFR (p < 0.01, d = 1.25). DOMS was higher in Supine LOP-BFR vs. no-BFR (p < 0.01, d = 0.77) and Seated LOP-BFR vs. no-BFR (p < 0.01, d = 3.52). Seated LOP-BFR increased perceptual demands and reduced repetitions compared to Supine LOP-BFR. Both LOP-BFR conditions reduced repetitions compared to no-BFR without affecting cardiovascular measures.

Feasibility and safety of two weeks of blood flow restriction exercise in individuals with spinal cord injury

CONTEXT

Reduced muscle strength and function are common after spinal cord injury (SCI). While low-load blood flow restriction exercise (BFRE) enhances muscle strength in healthy and clinical populations, its safety and feasibility in individuals with SCI remain underexplored.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the feasibility and safety of low-load BFRE in individuals with incomplete SCI.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series.

SETTING

SCI rehabilitation center.

PARTICIPANTS

Six participants with motor incomplete SCI were enrolled in the study.

INTERVENTION

A two-week BFRE intervention for the lower limbs was conducted twice weekly at 40% total arterial occlusion pressure, using 30-40% of 1-repetition maximum loads.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Feasibility measures, specifically recruitment and eligibility rates and intervention acceptability, were collected. Blood pressure (BP) responses and specific coagulation markers for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) were assessed as safety measures.

RESULTS

Recruitment and eligibility rates were 2.8% and 6.6% for individuals admitted for first-time rehabilitation (subacute SCI) and 8.3% and 13.9% for 4-week readmission rehabilitation stays (chronic SCI), respectively. Intervention acceptability was high, characterized by 95.8% training adherence and low-to-moderate self-reported pain levels. BP responses and changes in C-reactive protein, Fibrinogen, and D-dimer during the intervention remained within clinically acceptable levels.

CONCLUSION

BFRE was feasible in an SCI rehabilitation setting despite a low recruitment rate. BFRE imposed no heightened risk of DVT or severe BP fluctuations in the present case series. Additionally, no severe adverse events occurred, and only mild complaints were reported. More extensive safety considerations warrant larger-scale exploration.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03690700.

Blood flow restriction: The acute effects of body tilting and reduced gravity analogues on limb occlusion pressure

Blood flow restriction (BFR) has been identified as a potential countermeasure to mitigate physiological deconditioning during spaceflight. Guidelines recommend that tourniquet pressure be prescribed relative to limb occlusion pressure (LOP); however, it is unclear whether body tilting or reduced gravity analogues influence LOP. We examined LOP at the leg and arm during supine bedrest and bodyweight suspension (BWS) at 6° head-down tilt (HDT), horizontal (0°), and 9.5° head-up tilt (HUT) positions. Twenty-seven adults (age, 26 ± 5 years; height, 1.75 ± 0.08 m; body mass, 73 ± 12 kg) completed all tilts during bedrest. A subgroup (n = 15) additionally completed the tilts during BWS. In each position, LOP was measured twice in the leg and arm using the Delfi Personalized Tourniquet System after 5 min of rest and again after a further 5 min. The LOP at the leg increased significantly from 6° HDT to 9.5° HUT in bedrest and BWS by 9-15 mmHg (Cohen's d = 0.7-1.0). Leg LOP was significantly higher during BWS at horizontal and 9.5° HUT postures relative to the same angles during bedrest by 8 mmHg (Cohen's d = 0.6). Arm LOP remained unchanged between body tilts and analogues. Intraclass correlation coefficients for LOP measurements taken after an initial and subsequent 5 min rest period in all conditions ranged between 0.91-0.95 (leg) and 0.83-0.96 (arm). It is advised that LOP be measured before the application of a vascular occlusion in the same body tilt/setting to which it is applied to minimize discrepancies between the actual and prescribed tourniquet pressure.

Body position and cuff size influence lower limb arterial occlusion pressure and its predictors: implications for standardizing the pressure applied in training with blood flow restriction

Background: Arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) is a relevant measurement for individualized prescription of exercise with blood flow restriction (BFRE). Therefore, it is important to consider factors that may influence this measure. Purpose: This study aimed to compare lower limb AOP (LL-AOP) measured with 11 cm (medium) and 18 cm (large) cuffs, in different body positions, and explore the predictors for each of the LL-AOP measurements performed. This information may be useful for future studies that seek to develop approaches to improve the standardization of pressure adopted in BFRE, including proposals for equations to estimate LL-AOP. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study. Fifty-one healthy volunteers (males, n = 25, females, n = 26; Age: 18-40 years old) underwent measurement of thigh circumference (TC), brachial blood pressure, followed by assessments of LL-AOP with medium and large cuffs in positions supine, sitting and standing positions. Results: The large cuff required less external pressure (mmHg) to elicit arterial occlusion in all three-body positions when compared to the medium cuff (p < 0.001). The LL-AOP was significantly lower in the supine position, regardless of the cuff used (p < 0.001). Systolic blood pressure was the main predictor of LL-AOP in the large cuff, while TC was the main predictor of LL-AOP with the medium cuff. Body position influenced strength of the LL-AOP predictors. Conclusion: Our results indicate that LL-AOP and its predictors are substantially influenced by body position and cuff width. Therefore, these variables should be considered when standardizing the pressure prescribed in BFRE.

Acute Responses to Traditional and Cluster-Set Squat Training With and Without Blood Flow Restriction

ABSTRACT

Cornejo-Daza, PJ, Sánchez-Valdepeñas, J, Páez-Maldonado, J, Rodiles-Guerrero, L, Boullosa, D, León-Prados, JA, Wernbom, M, and Pareja-Blanco, F. Acute responses to traditional and cluster-set squat training with and without blood flow restriction. J Strength Cond Res 38(8): 1401-1412, 2024-To compare the acute responses to different set configurations (cluster [CLU] vs. traditional [TRA]) under distinct blood flow conditions (free vs. restricted) in full-squat (SQ). Twenty resistance-trained males performed 4 protocols that differed in the set configuration (TRA: continuous repetitions; vs. CLU: 30 seconds of rest every 2 repetitions) and in the blood flow condition (FF: free-flow; vs. blood flow restriction [BFR]: 50% of arterial occlusion pressure). The relative intensity (60% 1RM), volume (3 sets of 8 repetitions), and resting time (2 minutes) were equated. Mean propulsive force (MPF), velocity (MPV) and power (MPP), and electromyography (EMG) parameters were recorded during each repetition. Tensiomyography (TMG), blood lactate, countermovement jump (CMJ) height, maximal voluntary isometric contraction, in SQ, and movement velocity against the load that elicited a 1 m·s -1 velocity at baseline (V1-load) in SQ were assessed at pre- and post-exercise. The CLU protocols allowed a better maintenance of MPF, MPV, MPP, and EMG median frequency during the exercise compared to TRA (clu-time interaction, p < 0.05). The TRA protocols experienced greater impairments post-exercise in TMG- and EMG-derived variables (clu-time interaction, p < 0.05) and SQ and CMJ performance (clu-time interaction, p = 0.08 and p < 0.05, respectively), as well as higher blood lactate concentrations (clu-time interaction, p < 0.001) than CLU. Moreover, BFR displayed decreases in TMG variables (bfr-time interaction, p < 0.01), but BFR-CLU resulted in the greatest reduction in twitch contraction time ( p < 0.001). Cluster sets reduced fatigue during and after the training session and BFR exacerbated impairments in muscle mechanical properties; however, the combination of both could improve contraction speed after exercise.

Acute Responses to Different Velocity Loss Thresholds during Squat Exercise with Blood-Flow Restriction in Strength-Trained Men

(1) Background: The aim of this paper is to analyze the acute effects of different velocity loss (VL) thresholds during a full squat (SQ) with blood-flow restriction (BFR) on strength performance, neuromuscular activity, metabolic response, and muscle contractile properties. (2) Methods: Twenty strength-trained men performed four protocols that differed in the VL achieved within the set (BFR0: 0% VL; BFR10: 10% VL; BFR20: 20% VL; and BFR40: 40% VL). The relative intensity (60% 1RM), recovery between sets (2 min), number of sets (3), and level of BFR (50% of arterial occlusion pressure) were matched between protocols. Tensiomyography (TMG), blood lactate, countermovement jump (CMJ), maximal voluntary isometric SQ contraction (MVIC), and performance with the absolute load required to achieve 1 m·s-1 at baseline measurements in SQ were assessed before and after the protocols. (3) Results: BFR40 resulted in higher EMG alterations during and after exercise than the other protocols (p < 0.05). BFR40 also induced greater impairments in TMG-derived variables and BFR10 decreased contraction time. Higher blood lactate concentrations were found as the VL within the set increased. BFR0 and BFR10 showed significantly increased median frequencies in post-exercise MVIC. (4) Conclusions: High VL thresholds (BFR40) accentuated metabolic and neuromuscular stress, and produced increased alterations in muscles' mechanical properties. Low VL could potentiate post-exercise neuromuscular activity and muscle contractile properties.

Comparing the acute responses between a manual and automated blood flow restriction system

The purpose of this study was to compare acute responses between manual and automated blood flow restriction (BFR) systems.

Methods

A total of 33 individuals completed this study. On visit 1, arterial occlusion pressure (AOP, mm Hg), cardiovascular responses, and discomfort (RPE-D) were measured with each BFR system at rest. On visit 2, unilateral bicep curls were completed [30% one-repetition maximum; 50% AOP] with one system per arm. Muscle thickness (MT, cm) and maximal force (N) were assessed before (pre), immediately (post-0), 5 min (post-5), and 10 min (post-10) post-exercise. Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE-E) and ratings of perceived discomfort (RPE-D) were assessed throughout the exercise. AOP and repetitions were compared with Bayesian paired t-tests. Other outcomes were compared with Bayesian RMANOVAs. BF10 represents the likelihood of the best model vs. the null. The results are presented as mean ± SD.

Results

Supine cardiovascular responses and RPE-D were similar for manual and automated (all BF10 ≤ 0.2). Supine AOP for manual (157 ± 20) was higher than that of automated (142 ± 17; BF10 = 44496.0), but similar while standing (manual: 141 ± 17; automated: 141 ± 22; BF10 = 0.2). MT (time, BF10 = 6.047e + 40) increased from Pre (3.9 ± 0.7) to Post-0 (4.4 ± 0.8; BF10 = 2.969e + 28), with Post-0 higher than Post-5 (4.3 ± 0.8) and Post-10 (4.3 ± 0.8; both BF10 ≥ 275.2). Force (time, BF10 = 1.246e + 29) decreased from Pre (234.5 ± 79.2) to Post-0 (149.8 ± 52.3; BF10 = 2.720e + 22) and increased from Post-0 to Post-5 (193.3 ± 72.7; BF10 = 1.744e + 13), with Post-5 to Post-10 (194.0 ± 70.6; BF10 = 0.2) being similar. RPE-E increased over sets. RPE-D was lower for manual than automated. Repetitions per set were higher for manual (Set 1: 37 ± 18; Set 4: 9 ± 5) than automated (Set 1: 30 ± 7; Set 4: 7 ± 3; all BF10 ≥ 9.7).

Conclusion

Under the same relative pressure, responses are mostly similar between BFR systems, although a manual system led to lower exercise discomfort and more repetitions.

Validity and reliability of a wearable blood flow restriction training device for arterial occlusion pressure assessment

Purpose

The blood flow restriction (BFR) training is an effective approach to promoting muscle strength, muscle hypertrophy, and regulating the peripheral vascular system. It is recommended to use to the percentage of individual arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) to ensure safety and effectiveness. The gold standard method for assessing arterial occlusive disease is typically measured using Doppler ultrasound. However, its high cost and limited accessibility restrict its use in clinical and practical applications. A novel wearable BFR training device (Airbands) with automatic AOP assessment provides an alternative solution. This study aims to examine the reliability and validity of the wearable BFR training device.

Methods

Ninety-two participants (46 female and 46 male) were recruited for this study. Participants were positioned in the supine position with the wearable BFR training device placed on the proximal portion of the right thigh. AOP was measured automatically by the software program and manually by gradually increasing the pressure until the pulse was no longer detected by color Doppler ultrasound, respectively. Validity, inter-rater reliability, and test-retest reliability were assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis.

Results

The wearable BFR training device demonstrated good validity (ICC = 0.85, mean difference = 4.1 ± 13.8 mmHg [95% CI: -23.0 to 31.2]), excellent inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.97, mean difference = -1.4 ± 6.7 mmHg [95% CI: -14.4 to 11.7]), and excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.94, mean difference = 0.6 ± 8.6 mmHg [95% CI: -16.3 to 17.5]) for the assessment of AOP. These results were robust in both male and female subgroups.

Conclusion

The wearable BFR training device can be used as a valid and reliable tool to assess the AOP of the lower limb in the supine position during BFR training.

Measurement of arterial occlusion pressure using straight and curved blood flow restriction cuffs

Arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) is influenced by the characteristics of the cuff used to measure AOP. Doppler ultrasound was used to measure AOP of the brachial and superficial femoral arteries using straight and curved blood flow restriction cuffs in 21 males and 21 females. Vessel diameter and blood flow were evaluated as independent predictors of AOP. Overall, there were no significant differences in AOP when using the straight and curved cuffs in the brachial (129 mmHg vs. 128 mmHg) or superficial femoral artery (202 mmHg vs. 200 mmHg), respectively. Overall, AOP was greater (p < 0.05) in males than in females in the arm (135 mmHg, 123 mmHg) and leg (211 mmHg, 191 mmHg). Brachial (0.376 mm, 0.323 mm) and superficial femoral (0.547 mm, 0.486 mm) arteries were larger (p = 0.016) in males than in females, respectively. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) and arm circumference were predictive of brachial artery AOP, whereas SBP, diastolic blood pressure, thigh circumference, and vessel diameter were predictive of superficial femoral artery AOP. Straight and curved cuffs are efficacious in the measurement of AOP in the arm and leg. Differences in vessel size may contribute to sex differences in AOP but this requires further investigation.

Measurements of Arterial Occlusion Pressure Using Hand-Held Devices

ABSTRACT

Vehrs, PR, Reynolds, S, Allen, J, Barrett, R, Blazzard, C, Burbank, T, Hart, H, Kasper, N, Lacey, R, Lopez, D, and Fellingham, GW. Measurements of arterial occlusion pressure using hand-held devices. J Strength Cond Res 38(5): 873-880, 2024-Arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) of the brachial artery was measured simultaneously using Doppler ultrasound (US), a hand-held Doppler (HHDOP), and a pulse oximeter (PO) in the dominant (DOM) and nondominant (NDOM) arms of males ( n = 21) and females ( n = 23) using continuous (CONT) and incremental (INCR) cuff inflation protocols. A mixed-model analysis of variance revealed significant ( p < 0.05) overall main effects between AOP measured using a CONT (115.7 ± 10.9) or INCR (115.0 ± 11.5) cuff inflation protocol; between AOP measured using US (116.3 ± 11.2), HHDOP (115.4 ± 11.2), and PO (114.4 ± 11.2); and between males (120.7 ± 10.6) and females (110.5 ± 9.4). The small overall difference (1.81 ± 3.3) between US and PO measures of AOP was significant ( p < 0.05), but the differences between US and HHDOP and between HHDOP and PO measures of AOP were not significant. There were no overall differences in AOP between the DOM and NDOM arms. Trial-to-trial variance in US measurements of AOP was not significant when using either cuff inflation protocol but was significant when using HHDOP and PO and a CONT cuff inflation protocol. Bland-Altman plots revealed reasonable limits of agreement for both HHDOP and PO measures of AOP. The small differences in US, HHDOP, and PO measurements of AOP when using CONT or INCR cuff inflation protocols are of minimal practical importance. The choice of cuff inflation protocol is one of personal preference. Hand-held Doppler of PO can be used to assess AOP before using blood flow restriction during exercise.

Development of a prediction equation to estimate lower-limb arterial occlusion pressure with a thigh sphygmomanometer

INTRODUCTION

Previous investigators have developed prediction equations to estimate arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) for blood flow restriction (BFR) exercise. Most equations have not been validated and are designed for use with expensive cuff systems. Thus, their implementation is limited for practitioners.

PURPOSE

To develop and validate an equation to predict AOP in the lower limbs when applying an 18 cm wide thigh sphygmomanometer (SPHYG18cm).

METHODS

Healthy adults (n = 143) underwent measures of thigh circumference (TC), skinfold thickness (ST), and estimated muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) along with brachial and femoral systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure. Lower-limb AOP was assessed in a seated position at the posterior tibial artery (Doppler ultrasound) using a SPHYG18cm. Hierarchical linear regression models were used to determine predictors of AOP. The best set of predictors was used to construct a prediction equation to estimate AOP. Performance of the equation was evaluated and internally validated using bootstrap resampling.

RESULTS

Models containing measures of either TC or thigh composition (ST and CSA) paired with brachial blood pressures explained the most variability in AOP (54%) with brachial SBP accounting for majority of explained variability. A prediction equation including TC, brachial SBP, and age showed good predictability (R2 = 0.54, RMSE = 7.18 mmHg) and excellent calibration. Mean difference between observed and predicted values was 0.0 mmHg and 95% Limits of Agreement were ± 18.35 mmHg. Internal validation revealed small differences between apparent and optimism adjusted performance measures, suggesting good generalizability.

CONCLUSION

This prediction equation for use with a SPHYG18cm provided a valid way to estimate lower-limb AOP without expensive equipment.

Limb, sex, but not acute dietary capsaicin, modulate the near-infrared spectroscopy-vascular occlusion test estimate of muscle metabolism

The downward slope during the near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS)-vascular occlusion test (NIRS-VOT) is purported as a simplified estimate of metabolism. Whether or not the NIRS-VOT exhibits sex- or limb-specificity or may be acutely altered remains to be elucidated. Thus, we investigated if there is limb- or sex specificity in tissue desaturation rates (DeO2) during a NIRS-VOT, and if acute dietary capsaicin may alter this estimate of muscle metabolism. Young healthy men (n = 25, 21 ± 4 years) and women (n = 20, 20 ± 1 years) ingested either placebo or capsaicin, in a counterbalanced, single-blind, crossover design after which a simplified NIRS-VOT was conducted to determine the DeO2 (%/s), as an estimate of oxidative muscle metabolism, in both the forearm (flexors) and thigh (vastus lateralis). There was a significant limb effect with the quadriceps having a greater DeO2 than the forearm (-2.31 ± 1.34 vs. -1.78 ± 1.22%/s, p = 0.007, ηp 2 = 0.19). There was a significant effect of sex on DeO2 (p = 0.005, ηp 2 = 0.203) with men exhibiting a lesser DeO2 than women (-1.73 ± 1.03 vs. -2.36 ± 1.32%/s, respectively). This manifested in significant interactions of limb*capsaicin (p = 0.001, ηp 2 = 0.26) as well as limb*capsaicin*sex on DeO2 (p = 0.013, ηp 2 = 0.16) being observed. Capsaicin does not clearly alter O2-dependent muscle metabolism, but there was apparent limb and sex specificity, interacting with capsaicin in this NIRS-derived assessment.

Blood flow restriction pressure for narrow cuffs (5 cm) cannot be estimated with precision

Blood flow restriction pressures are set relative to the lowest pressure needed to occlude blood flow with that specific cuff. Due to pressure limitations of some devices, it is often not possible to occlude blood flow in all subjects and apply a known relative pressure in the lower body with a 5 cm wide cuff.Objective. To use a device capable of generating high pressures (up to 907 mmHg) to create and validate an estimation equation for the 5 cm cuff in the lower body using a 12 cm cuff.Approach. 170 participants had their arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) with a 5 cm and 12 cm cuff and their thigh circumference measured in their right leg. The sample was randomly allocated to a prediction group (66%) and validation group (33%). Thigh circumference and 12 cm AOP were used as predictors. A Bland-Altman plot was constructed to assess agreement between measured and predicted values.Main results. The mean difference (95% confidence interval) between the observed (336.8 mmHg) and the predicted (343.9 mmHg) 5 cm AOP was 7.1 (-11.9, 26.1) mmHg. The 95% limits of agreement were -133.6 to 147.8 mmHg. There was a negative relationship between the difference and the average of predicted and measured 5 cm AOP (B= -0.317,p= 0.000043).Significance. Although this was the first study to quantify AOP over 600 mmHg with a 5 cm cuff, our equation is not valid across all levels of pressure. If possible, larger cuff widths should be employed in the lower body.

Autoregulated and Non-Autoregulated Blood Flow Restriction on Acute Arterial Stiffness

This study aimed to investigate the acute effects of autoregulated and non-autoregulated applied pressures during blood flow restriction resistance exercise to volitional fatigue on indices of arterial stiffness using the Delfi Personalized Tourniquet System. Following a randomized autoregulated or non-autoregulated blood flow restriction familiarization session, 20 physically active adults (23±5 years; 7 females) participated in three randomized treatment-order sessions with autoregulated and non-autoregulated and no blood flow restriction training. Participants performed four sets of dumbbell wall squats to failure using 20% of one repetition maximum. Blood flow restriction was performed with 60% of supine limb occlusion pressure. Testing before and post-session included an ultrasonic scan of the carotid artery, applanation tonometry, and blood pressure acquisition.Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity increased in the non-autoregulated and no blood flow restriction training groups following exercise while carotid-radial pulse wave velocity increased in the no blood flow restriction training group (all p<0.05). Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity exhibited an interaction effect between autoregulated and non-autoregulated blood flow restriction in favor of autoregulated blood flow restriction (p<0.05). Autoregulated blood flow restriction training does not influence indices of arterial stiffness while non-autoregulated and no blood flow restriction training increases central stiffness.

Blood flow restriction augments exercise-induced pressure pain thresholds over repetition and effort matched conditions

We sought to determine the effects of blood flow restriction (BFR) on exercise-induced hypoalgesia, specifically using low-load (LL) resistance exercise (30% 1RM) protocols that accounted for each individual's local muscular endurance capabilities. Forty-four participants completed four conditions: (1) 70% of maximal BFR repetitions with blood flow restriction (LL+BFR exercise); (2) 70% maximal BFR repetitions without LL+BFR (LL exercise); (3) 70% maximal free flow repetitions (LL+EFFORT exercise); (4) time-matched, non-exercise control (CON). Pressure pain threshold (PPT) was measured before and after exercise. Ischaemic pain threshold and tolerance was assessed only at post. The change in upper body PPT was greater for LL+BFR exercise compared to LL exercise [difference of 0.15 (0.35) kg/cm2], LL+EFFORT exercise [difference of 0.23 (0.45) kg/cm2], and the CON condition. The change in lower body PPT was greater for LL+BFR exercise compared to LL exercise [difference of 0.40 (0.55) kg/cm2], LL+EFFORT exercise [difference of 0.36 (0.62) kg/cm2], and the CON condition. Ischaemic pain thresholds and tolerances did not change. Submaximal exercise with BFR resulted in systemic increases in PPT but had no influence on ischaemic pain sensitivity. This effect is likely unique to BFR as we did not see changes in the effort matched free flow condition.

Safety and efficacy of blood flow restriction exercise in individuals with neurological disorders: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review evaluated the safety and efficacy of blood flow restriction exercise (BFRE) on skeletal muscle size, strength, and functional performance in individuals with neurological disorders (ND).

METHODS

A literature search was performed in PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase. Two researchers independently assessed eligibility and performed data extraction and quality assessments.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Study populations with ND, BFRE as intervention modality, outcome measures related to safety or efficacy.

RESULTS

Out of 443 studies identified, 16 were deemed eligible for review. Three studies examined the efficacy and safety of BFRE, one study focused on efficacy results, and 12 studies investigated safety. Disease populations included spinal cord injury (SCI), inclusion body myositis (sIBM), multiple sclerosis (MS), Parkinson's disease (PD), and stroke. A moderate-to-high risk of bias was presented in the quality assessment. Five studies reported safety concerns, including acutely elevated pain and rating of perceived exertion levels, severe fatigue, muscle soreness, and cases of autonomic dysreflexia. Two RCTs reported a significant between-group difference in physical function outcomes, and two RCTs reported neuromuscular adaptations.

CONCLUSION

BFRE seems to be a potentially safe and effective training modality in individuals with ND. However, the results should be interpreted cautiously due to limited quality and number of studies, small sample sizes, and a general lack of heterogeneity within and between the examined patient cohorts.

Blood Flow Restriction Training in Nonspecific Shoulder Pain: Study Protocol of a Crossover Randomised Controlled Trial

"Nonspecific shoulder pain" encompasses various non-traumatic musculoskeletal shoulder disorders, diverging from diagnostic terminologies that refer to precise tissue-oriented clinical diagnosis. Blood flow restriction (BFR) training, involving partial arterial inflow and complete venous outflow restriction, has exhibited acute hypoalgesic effects primarily in healthy populations by increasing their pain thresholds. This study aims to examine whether a single BFR session with low-load exercises can alleviate pain perception among nonspecific shoulder pain patients. Conducted as a single-blind crossover randomised clinical trial, 48 adults (age range: 18 to 40) presenting with nonspecific shoulder pain will partake in two trial sessions. Random assignment will place participants into BFR or sham BFR groups and ask them to perform one exercise with BFR. Subsequently, participants will complete a shoulder girdle loading regimen comprising six exercises. The second session will involve participants switching treatment groups. Pain pressure thresholds (PPTs), shoulder pain and disability via the shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI), maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) of shoulder external rotators, pain during active abduction, and peak pain during shoulder external rotation will be evaluated using the numeric pain rating scale (NPRS). Immediate post-exercise assessments will include patient-perceived pain changes using the global rating of change scale (GROC) and participant-rated perceived exertion (RPE), employing a modified Borg's scale (Borg CR10) post-BFR or sham BFR exercise session. Each session will encompass three assessment periods, and a combination of mixed-effect models and descriptive statistics will underpin the analysis. This protocol was approved by Cyprus National Bioethics Committee (ΕΕΒΚ/2023/48), and was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (Registration number: NCT05956288). Conclusion: The anticipated outcomes of this study illuminated the acute effects of BFR training on pain perception within the context of nonspecific shoulder pain, potentially advancing strategies for managing pain intensity using BFR techniques.

Use of a handheld Doppler to measure brachial and femoral artery occlusion pressure

Objective: Measurement of arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) is essential to the safe and effective use of blood flow restriction during exercise. Use of a Doppler ultrasound (US) is the "gold standard" method to measure AOP. Validation of a handheld Doppler (HHDOP) device to measure AOP could make the measurement of AOP more accessible to practitioners in the field. The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of AOP measurements of the brachial and femoral arteries using an HHDOP. Methods: We simultaneously measured AOP using a "gold standard" US and a HHDOP in the dominant and non-dominant arms (15 males; 15 females) and legs (15 males; 15 females). Results: There were no differences in limb circumference or limb volume in the dominant and non-dominant arms and legs between males and females or between the dominant and non-dominant arms and legs of males and females. The differences between US and HHDOP measures of AOP in the dominant and non-dominant arms and legs were either not significant or small (<10 mmHg) and of little practical importance. There were no sex differences in AOP measurements of the femoral artery (p > 0.60). Bland-Altman analysis yielded an average bias (-0.65 mmHg; -2.93 mmHg) and reasonable limits of agreement (±5.56 mmHg; ±5.58 mmHg) between US and HHDOP measures of brachial and femoral artery AOP, respectively. Conclusion: HHDOP yielded acceptable measures of AOP of the brachial and femoral arteries and can be used to measure AOP by practitioners for the safe and effective use of blood flow restriction. Due to the potential differences in AOP between dominant and non-dominant limbs, AOP should be measured in each limb.

Aerobic Training With Blood Flow Restriction for Endurance Athletes: Potential Benefits and Considerations of Implementation

ABSTRACT

Smith, NDW, Scott, BR, Girard, O, and Peiffer, JJ. Aerobic training with blood flow restriction for endurance athletes: potential benefits and considerations of implementation. J Strength Cond Res 36(12): 3541-3550, 2022-Low-intensity aerobic training with blood flow restriction (BFR) can improve maximal oxygen uptake, delay the onset of blood lactate accumulation, and may provide marginal benefits to economy of motion in untrained individuals. Such a training modality could also improve these physiological attributes in well-trained athletes. Indeed, aerobic BFR training could be beneficial for those recovering from injury, those who have limited time for training a specific physiological capacity, or as an adjunct training stimulus to provide variation in a program. However, similarly to endurance training without BFR, using aerobic BFR training to elicit physiological adaptations in endurance athletes will require additional considerations compared with nonendurance athletes. The objective of this narrative review is to discuss the acute and chronic aspects of aerobic BFR exercise for well-trained endurance athletes and highlight considerations for its effective implementation. This review first highlights key physiological capacities of endurance performance. The acute and chronic responses to aerobic BFR exercise and their impact on performance are then discussed. Finally, considerations for prescribing and monitoring aerobic BFR exercise in trained endurance populations are addressed to challenge current views on how BFR exercise is implemented.

Current Trends in Blood Flow Restriction

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to explore how individuals in the United States of America applied BFR/KAATSU devices and administered BFR/KAATSU training. In addition, the study sought to examine safety topics related to BFR/KAATSU training. Methods: The study was completed using survey research. Subjects were recruited through Facebook, email, and word of mouth. The survey was developed, piloted, and finally deployed March 22, 2021-April 21, 2021. Results: In total, 148 consented to the research; 108 completed the survey, and of those 108, 70 indicated current use with BFR/KAATSU equipment. Professions represented included athletic training, personal training, physical therapy, and strength and conditioning. Among those currently using BFR/KAATSU training (n = 70), the following results were found. The most common devices used were inflatable devices (n = 43, 61.4%). Education completed prior to device administration was formal (n = 39, 55.7%) and/or self-directed (n = 37, 52.9%). Barriers were faced by 29 (41.4%) when trying to enact training. Techniques and parameters varied during application. Screening processes were used (n = 50, 71.4%) prior to training. The devices were used to determine restrictive pressure (n = 31, 44.3%), and a supine position was used most when determining initial restrictive pressure (n = 33, 47.1%). For subsequent restrictive pressure measurements, respondents repeated the same method used initially (n = 38, 54.3%). Workload was often defined as the length of time under tension/load (n = 22, 31.4%) and exercise was directly supervised (n = 52, 74.3%). Adverse effects included bruising, lightheadedness, and cramping (n = 15, 21.4%). The devices have also been applied on those with pathology (n = 16, 22.9%). Conclusion: Those using blood flow restriction/KAATSU devices came from several professions and used an assortment of devices for BFR/KAATSU training. Individuals applied devices using a variety of parameters on populations for which efficacy has and has not been well defined.

Exercise With Low-Loads and Concurrent Partial Blood Flow Restriction Combined With Patient Education in Females Suffering From Gluteal Tendinopathy: A Feasibility Study

Introduction

To date, there exists no gold standard conservative treatment for lateral hip pain due to tendinopathy of the gluteus medius and/or minimus tendon (GT), a condition often complicated by pain and disability. Higher loads during everyday activities and exercise seems to be contraindicated with GT. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of exercise with low-loads concurrent partial blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) and patient education for patients present GT.

Methods

Recruitment took place at three hospitals in the Central Denmark Region. The intervention consisted of daily sessions for 8 weeks with one weekly supervised session. From week three patients exercised with applied partial blood flow restriction by means of a pneumatic cuff around the proximal thigh of the affected leg. Throughout the intervention patients received patient education on their hip condition. Sociodemographic and clinical variables were collected at baseline. The feasibility of LL-BFR was conducted by adherence to the exercise protocol and drop-out rate. Patient reported outcome measures (The Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Gluteal Questionnaire, EuroQol - 5 Dimensions-Visual Analogue Scale, Oxford Hip Score, Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score), maximal voluntary isometric hip abduction-, hip extension, and knee extension strength (Nm/kg) measured using a handheld dynamometer, and functional capacity tests (30 second chair-stand test and a stair-climb test) was conducted as secondary outcomes.

Results

Sixteen women with a median (IQR) age of 51 (46–60) years were included. Median (IQR) Body Mass Index was 26.69 (23.59–30.46) kg/m2. Adherence to the total number of training sessions and the LL-BFR was 96.4 and 94.4%, respectively. Two patients dropped out due to (i) illness before initiation of LL-BFR and (ii) pain in the affected leg related to the LL-BFR-exercise. At follow-up both pain levels and patient-reported outcome measures improved. Isometric hip abduction-, hip extension-, and knee extension strength on both legs and functional performance increased. Conclusion: LL-BFR-exercise seems feasible for treatment of GT. At follow-up, a high adherence and low drop-out rate were observed. Further, patients reported clinically relevant reductions in pain, and showed significant increases in isometric hip and knee strength.

The Role of Plasma Extracellular Vesicles in Remote Ischemic Conditioning and Exercise-Induced Ischemic Tolerance

Ischemic conditioning and exercise have been suggested for protecting against brain ischemia-reperfusion injury. However, the endogenous protective mechanisms stimulated by these interventions remain unclear. Here, in a comprehensive translational study, we investigated the protective role of extracellular vesicles (EVs) released after remote ischemic conditioning (RIC), blood flow restricted resistance exercise (BFRRE), or high-load resistance exercise (HLRE). Blood samples were collected from human participants before and at serial time points after intervention. RIC and BFRRE plasma EVs released early after stimulation improved viability of endothelial cells subjected to oxygen-glucose deprivation. Furthermore, post-RIC EVs accumulated in the ischemic area of a stroke mouse model, and a mean decrease in infarct volume was observed for post-RIC EVs, although not reaching statistical significance. Thus, circulating EVs induced by RIC and BFRRE can mediate protection, but the in vivo and translational effects of conditioned EVs require further experimental verification.

Physiological Responses to Acute Cycling With Blood Flow Restriction

Aerobic exercise with blood flow restriction (BFR) can improve muscular function and aerobic capacity. However, the extent to which cuff pressure influences acute physiological responses to aerobic exercise with BFR is not well documented. We compared blood flow, tissue oxygenation, and neuromuscular responses to acute cycling with and without BFR. Ten participants completed four intermittent cycling (6 × 2 min) conditions: low-load cycling (LL), low-load cycling with BFR at 60% of limb occlusion pressure (BFR60), low-load cycling with BFR at 80% of limb occlusion pressure (BFR80), and high-load cycling (HL). Tissue oxygenation, cardiorespiratory, metabolic, and perceptual responses were assessed during cycling and blood flow was measured during recovery periods. Pre- to post-exercise changes in knee extensor function were also assessed. BFR60 and BFR80 reduced blood flow (~33 and ~ 50%, respectively) and tissue saturation index (~5 and ~15%, respectively) when compared to LL (all p < 0.05). BFR60 resulted in lower VO2, heart rate, ventilation, and perceived exertion compared to HL (all p < 0.05), whereas BFR80 resulted in similar heart rates and exertion to HL (both p > 0.05). BFR60 and BFR80 elicited greater pain compared to LL and HL (all p < 0.05). After exercise, knee extensor torque decreased by ~18 and 40% for BFR60 and BFR80, respectively (both p < 0.05), and was compromised mostly through peripheral mechanisms. Cycling with BFR increased metabolic stress, decreased blood flow, and impaired neuromuscular function. However, only BFR60 did so without causing very severe pain (>8 on pain intensity scale). Cycling with BFR at moderate pressure may serve as a potential alternative to traditional high-intensity aerobic exercise.

Blood flow restriction maintains blood pressure upon head-up tilt

BACKGROUND

Orthostatic intolerance occurs in some astronauts following space flight. Although orthostatic blood pressure responses should normalize in the weeks following the return to Earth, there may be situations where an immediate short-term solution is necessary (e.g., emergency evacuation).

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to examine different levels of blood flow restriction on changes in blood pressure and heart rate when transitioning from supine to a head-up tilt and determine whether this change differs based on sex.

METHODS

Eighty-nine participants (45 men, 44 women) completed the three visits with different pressures (Sham, Moderate, and High) in a randomized order. Cuffs were placed on the most proximal area of the thighs. Brachial blood pressure was measured at baseline, upon inflation of the cuffs in a supine position, immediately after tilt (70°), and eight more times separated by 45 seconds.

RESULTS

Data are presented as mean (SD). The change in systolic (High > Moderate > Sham) [High vs Sham: 5.5 (7.4) mmHg, High vs Moderate: 3 (7.4) mmHg, and Moderate vs Sham: 2.4 (8.4) mmHg] and diastolic pressure (High > Moderate = Sham) [High vs Sham: 2.4 (5.3) mmHg, High vs Moderate: 1.9 (6.3) mmHg] differed across applied pressures. The change in heart rate was initially greatest in the sham-pressure but increased the greatest in the high-pressure condition by the end of the head-up tilt period. Additionally, there was no influence of sex.

CONCLUSION

Blood flow restriction applied in this study increased blood pressure in a pressure-dependent manner upon head-up tilt.

A bibliometric analysis study of blood flow restriction using CiteSpace

[Purpose] To assess the current state-of-the-art and the prevailing trends regarding the global use of blood flow restriction (BFR) in the past 20 years. [Participants and Methods] We retrieved literature relating to BFR from 1999 to 2020 using Web of Science. We conducted a bibliometric analysis of countries/institutions, cited journals, authors/cited authors, cited references, and keywords using CiteSpace. An analysis of counts and centrality was used to examine publication output, countries/institutions, core journals, active authors, foundation references, hot topics, and frontiers. [Results] Seven hundred seventy five references were included and the total number of publications has been continually increasing over the investigated period. Representatives of important academic groups are the Japanese scholars from the University of Tokyo as represented by Takashi Abe. Jeremy Paul Loenneke’s article (centrality: 0.15) was the most representative and symbolic reference with the highest centrality. The three topics identified were intervention (intensity resistance exercise, IRE), physiology (ischemia and muscular function) and behavior (adaptation and increase). The four frontier topics were phosphorylation, reduction, low intensity and arterial occlusion. [Conclusion] This study provides an insight into BFR and offers valuable information for BFR researchers to identify new perspectives for potential cooperation with collaborators and their related cooperative institutions.

Current Techniques Used for Practical Blood Flow Restriction Training: A Systematic Review

ABSTRACT

Bielitzki, R, Behrendt, T, Behrens, M, and Schega, L. Current techniques used for practical blood flow restriction training: a systematic review. J Strength Cond Res 35(10): 2936-2951, 2021-The purpose of this article was to systematically review the available scientific evidence on current methods used for practical blood flow restriction (pBFR) training together with application characteristics as well as advantages and disadvantages of each technique. A literature search was conducted in different databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library) for the period from January 2000 to December 2020. Inclusion criteria for this review were (a) original research involving humans, (b) the use of elastic wraps or nonpneumatic cuffs, and (c) articles written in English. Of 26 studies included and reviewed, 15 were conducted using an acute intervention (11 in the lower body and 4 in the upper body), and 11 were performed with a chronic intervention (8 in the lower body, 1 in the upper body, and 2 in both the upper and the lower body). Three pBFR techniques could be identified: (a) based on the perceptual response (perceived pressure technique), (b) based on the overlap of the cuff (absolute and relative overlap technique), and (c) based on the cuffs' maximal tensile strength (maximal cuff elasticity technique). In conclusion, the perceived pressure technique is simple, valid for the first application, and can be used independently of the cuffs' material properties, but is less reliable within a person over time. The absolute and relative overlap technique as well as the maximal cuff elasticity technique might be applied more reliably due to markings, but require a cuff with constant material properties over time.

The Effect of Body Position and the Reliability of Upper Limb Arterial Occlusion Pressure Using a Handheld Doppler Ultrasound for Blood Flow Restriction Training

BACKGROUND

The precise calculation of arterial occlusive pressure is essential to accurately prescribe individualized pressures during blood flow restriction training. Arterial occlusion pressure in the lower limb varies significantly between different body positions while similar reports for the upper limb are lacking.

HYPOTHESIS

Body position has a significant effect in upper limb arterial occlusive pressure. Using cuffs with manual pump and a handheld Doppler ultrasound can be a reliable method to determine upper limb arterial blood flow restriction.

STUDY DESIGN

A randomized repeated measures design.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 3.

METHODS

Forty-two healthy participants (age mean ± SD = 28.1 ± 7.7 years) completed measurements in supine, seated, and standing position by 3 blinded raters. A cuff with a manual pump and a handheld acoustic ultrasound were used. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test with Bonferroni correction was used to analyze differences between body positions. A within-subject coefficient of variation and an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) test were used to calculate reproducibility and reliability, respectively.

RESULTS

A significantly higher upper limb arterial occlusive pressure was found in seated compared with supine position (P < 0.031) and in supine compared with standing position (P < 0.031) in all raters. An ICC of 0.894 (95% CI = 0.824-0.939, P < 0.001) was found in supine, 0.973 (95% CI = 0.955-0.985, P < 0.001) in seated, and 0.984 (95% CI = 0.973-0.991, P < 0.001) in standing position. ICC for test-retest reliability was found 0.90 (95% CI = 0.814-0.946, P < 0.001), 0.873 (95% CI = 0.762-0.93, P < 0.001), and 0.858 (95% CI = 0.737-0.923, P < 0.001) in the supine, seated, and standing position, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Upper limb arterial occlusive pressure was significantly dependent on body position. The method showed excellent interrater reliability and repeatability between different days.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Prescription of individualized pressures during blood flow restriction training requires measurement of upper limb arterial occlusive pressure in the appropriate position. The use of occlusion cuffs with a manual pump and a handheld Doppler ultrasound showed excellent reliability; however, the increased measurement error compared with the differences in arterial occlusive pressure between certain positions should be carefully considered for the clinical application of the method.

STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATIONS TAXONOMY (SORT)

B.

Differences in Femoral Artery Occlusion Pressure between Sexes and Dominant and Non-Dominant Legs

Background and Objectives: Blood flow restriction during low-load exercise stimulates similar muscle adaptations to those normally observed with higher loads. Differences in the arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) between limbs and between sexes are unclear. We compared the AOP of the superficial femoral artery in the dominant and non-dominant legs, and the relationship between blood flow and occlusion pressure in 35 (16 males, 19 females) young adults. Materials and Methods: Using ultrasound, we measured the AOP of the superficial femoral artery in both legs. Blood flow at occlusion pressures ranging from 0% to 100% of the AOP was measured in the dominant leg. Results: There was a significant difference in the AOP between males and females in the dominant (230 ± 41 vs. 191 ± 27 mmHg; p = 0.002) and non-dominant (209 ± 37 vs. 178 ± 21 mmHg; p = 0.004) legs, and between the dominant and non-dominant legs in males (230 ± 41 vs. 209 ± 37 mmHg; p = 0.009) but not females (191 ± 27 vs. 178 ± 21 mmHg; p = 0.053), respectively. Leg circumference was the most influential independent predictor of the AOP. There was a linear relationship between blood flow (expressed as a percentage of unoccluded blood flow) and occlusion pressure (expressed as a percentage of AOP). Conclusions: Arterial occlusion pressure is not always greater in the dominant leg or the larger leg. Practitioners should measure AOP in both limbs to determine if occlusion pressures used during exercise should be limb specific. Occlusion pressures used during blood flow restriction exercise should be chosen carefully.

Methodological Variations Contributing to Heterogenous Ergogenic Responses to Ischemic Preconditioning

Ischemic preconditioning (IPC) has been repeatedly reported to augment maximal exercise performance over a range of exercise durations and modalities. However, an examination of the relevant literature indicates that the reproducibility and robustness of ergogenic responses to this technique are variable, confounding expectations about the magnitude of its effects. Considerable variability among study methodologies may contribute to the equivocal responses to IPC. This review focuses on the wide range of methodologies used in IPC research, and how such variability likely confounds interpretation of the interactions of IPC and exercise. Several avenues are recommended to improve IPC methodological consistency, which should facilitate a future consensus about optimizing the IPC protocol, including due consideration of factors such as: location of the stimulus, the time between treatment and exercise, individualized tourniquet pressures and standardized tourniquet physical characteristics, and the incorporation of proper placebo treatments into future study designs.

Current Clinical Concepts: Blood Flow Restriction Training

Muscle weakness and atrophy are common impairments following musculoskeletal injury. The use of blood flow restriction (BFR) training offers the ability to mitigate weakness and atrophy without overloading healing tissues. This approach requires consideration of a wide range of parameters and the purpose of this manuscript is to provide insights into proposed mechanisms of effectiveness, safety considerations, application guidelines, and clinical guidelines for BFR training following musculoskeletal injury. BFR training appears to be a safe and effective approach to therapeutic exercise in sports medicine environments. While training with higher loads produces the most substantial increases in strength and hypertrophy, BFR training appears to be a reasonable option to bridge between earlier phases of rehabilitation when higher loads may not be tolerated by the patient and later stages that are consistent with return to sport performance.

Feasibility and estimated efficacy of blood flow restricted training in female patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized controlled pilot study

Objectives: The study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a blood flow restriction (BFR) training regimen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA); and to compare the effects of 4 weeks of BFR training with low-intensity strength training on muscle strength, muscle endurance, and joint pain in patients with RA.Method: In this non-blinded pilot randomized controlled trial, 18 women with RA aged 18-65 years performed low-intensity strength training for the lower limbs three times a week for 4 weeks, and were randomized to train with or without occlusion bands. The primary outcomes were registration of the recruitment process, compliance with training sessions, side effects, perceived pain, and a satisfaction survey. The secondary outcomes were changes in muscle strength, muscle endurance, and joint pain.Results: The findings of this pilot study included a challenging recruitment process, well tolerated training and test protocols, overall good patient satisfaction, no serious side effects, and high compliance. Both groups achieved significant improvements in knee extensor strength from baseline to follow-up, with a change of 11.5 kg [interquartile range (IQR) 9.8;13.0] in the intervention group and 8.4 kg (IQR 5.5;12.4) in the control group, and a significant between-group difference in favour of the intervention group (p = 0.0342).Conclusions: The feasibility results of this study indicated a challenging recruitment process, general satisfaction with the BFR and exercises, good compliance, and only expected non-serious side effects. BFR training may improve knee extensor strength in women with RA, compared low-intensity strength training without BFR.

Limb occlusion pressure for blood flow restricted exercise: Variability and relations with participant characteristics

OBJECTIVE

Assess lower-extremity blood flow restricted exercise (BFR) limb occlusion pressure (LOP) variability and identify related intrinsic characteristics using a portable Delphi BFR system.

DESIGN

Repeated measures.

SETTING

Laboratory.

PARTICIPANTS

Forty-two healthy males (n = 25) and females (n = 17) (25.8 ± 5.2 y, 1.76 ±0 .09 m, 78.9 ± 14.9 kg) completed two visits. Brachial artery blood pressure, thigh circumferences (TC), and LOP were measured supine.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Linear mixed-effects models (LMM) and generalizability theory were used to evaluate LOP between legs and days, determine intrinsic characteristic relations, and assess random variance components.

RESULTS

LOP was not different between legs (p = .730) or days (p = .916; grand mean = 183.7 mmHg [178.4, 189.1]). LOP varied significantly between participants (p = .011, standard error = 47.3 mmHg). 47% of LOP variance was between participants, 18% and 6% was within participants between days and legs, respectively, and 28% was associated with random error. The relative error variance was 14.4 mmHg. Pulse pressure (PP) (p = .005) and TC (p = .040) were positively associated with LOP. A LMM including PP and TC predicted LOP with a mean absolute difference of 11.1 mmHg [9.7, 12.6] compared to measured LOP.

CONCLUSIONS

The relative error variance suggests that clinicians should measure LOP consistently for each patient to ensure BFR safety and effectiveness.

The Safety of Blood Flow Restriction Training as a Therapeutic Intervention for Patients With Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of blood flow restriction training (BFRT) as compared with other forms of training, such as resistance training, has been evaluated in the literature in clinical and nonclinical populations. However, the safety of this intervention has been summarized only in healthy populations and not in clinical populations with musculoskeletal disorders.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety and adverse events associated with BFRT in patients with musculoskeletal disorders.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted with 3 online databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Embase). Eligibility criteria for selecting studies were as follows: (1) BFRT was used as a clinical intervention, (2) study participants had a disorder of the musculoskeletal system, (3) authors addressed adverse events, (4) studies were published in English, and (5) the intervention was performed with human participants.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies met eligibility criteria, with a pooled sample size of 322. Diagnoses included various knee-related disorders, inclusion body myositis, polymyositis or dermatomyositis, thoracic outlet syndrome, Achilles tendon rupture, and bony fractures. Nine studies reported no adverse events, while 3 reported rare adverse events, including an upper extremity deep vein thrombosis and rhabdomyolysis. Three case studies reported common adverse events, including acute muscle pain and acute muscle fatigue. In the randomized controlled trials, individuals exposed to BFRT were not more likely to have an adverse event than individuals exposed to exercise alone. Of the 19 studies, the adverse events were as follows: overall, 14 of 322; rare overall, 3 of 322; rare BFRT, 3 of 168; rare control, 0 of 154; any adverse BFRT, 10 of 168; any adverse control, 4 of 154. A majority of studies were excluded because they did not address safety.

CONCLUSION

BFRT appears to be a safe strengthening approach for knee-related musculoskeletal disorders, but further research is needed to make definitive conclusions and to evaluate the safety in other musculoskeletal conditions. Improved definitions of adverse events related to BFRT are needed to include clear criteria for differentiating among common, uncommon, and rare adverse events. Finally, further research is needed to effectively screen who might be at risk for rare adverse events.

Determining the Arterial Occlusion Pressure for Blood Flow Restriction: Pulse Oximeter as a New Method Compared With a Handheld Doppler

Lima-Soares, F, Pessoa, KA, Torres Cabido, CE, Lauver, J, Cholewa, J, Rossi, FE, and Zanchi, NE. Determining the arterial occlusion pressure for blood flow restriction: pulse oximeter as a new method compared with a handheld Doppler. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2020-In laboratorial and clinical settings, the use of Doppler ultrasound equipment has been considered the gold standard method to determine arterial occlusion pressure (AOP). However, the use of Doppler equipment is inherently limited to the technical expertise needed to perform AOP measurements. To overcome the technical difficulties of the use of Doppler equipment use in the determination of AOP, a simpler and less subjective methodology would be helpful for blood flow restriction (BFR) practitioners. In this regard, portable pulse oximetry has been largely used in clinical practice for measuring systolic pressures, as well as loss or recovery of pulse, with results similar to those observed with the use of Doppler equipment. For such purposes, the AOP from young male and female subjects was evaluated after different body positions (standing, seated, and supine positions). Loss of capillary blood flow or AOP was readily determined by simple visual inspection for the pulse oximeter and loss of sound for the Doppler equipment. The results presented herein strongly suggest the use of the portable pulse oximetry equipment as reliable, when compared with the handheld Doppler (seated K = 0.962, standing K = 0.845, and supine K = 0.963 and seated rs = 0.980, standing rs = 0.958, and supine rs = 0.955). Because AOP measurement by pulse oximetry is relatively easier to perform and financially more accessible than handheld Doppler equipment, BFR practitioners may benefit from this new methodology to measure AOP, thus determining individualized restriction pressures.

Perioperative Blood Flow Restriction Rehabilitation in Patients Undergoing ACL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

Background:

Low-load blood flow restriction (BFR) training has attracted attention as a potentially effective method of perioperative clinical rehabilitation for patients undergoing orthopaedic procedures.

Purpose:

To (1) compare the effectiveness of low-load BFR training in conjunction with a standard rehabilitation protocol, pre- and postoperatively, and non-BFR interventions in patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and (2) evaluate protocols for implementing BFR perioperatively for patients undergoing ACLR.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2.

Methods:

A systematic review of the 3 medical literature databases was conducted to identify all level 1 and 2 clinical trials published since 1990 on BFR in patients undergoing ACLR. Patient demographics from included studies were pooled. Outcome data were documented, including muscle strength and size, and perceived pain and exertion. A descriptive analysis of outcomes from BFR and non-BFR interventions was performed.

Results:

A total of 6 studies (154 patients; 66.2% male; mean ± SD age, 24.2 ± 3.68 years) were included. Of these, 2 studies examined low-load BFR as a preoperative intervention, 1 of which observed a significant increase in muscle isometric endurance (P = .014), surface electromyography of the vastus medialis (P < .001), and muscle blood flow to the vastus lateralis at final follow-up (P < .001) as compared with patients undergoing sham BFR. Four studies investigated low-load BFR as a postoperative intervention, and they observed significant benefits in muscle hypertrophy, as measured by cross-sectional area; strength, as measured by extensor torque; and subjective outcomes, as measured by subjective knee pain during session, over traditional low-load resistance training (all P < .05). BFR occlusion periods ranged from 3 to 5 minutes, with rest periods ranging from 45 seconds to 3 minutes.

Conclusion:

This systematic review found evidence on the topic of BFR rehabilitation after ACLR to be sparse and heterogeneous likely because of the relatively recent onset of its popularity. While a few authors have demonstrated the potential strength and hypertrophy benefits of perioperative BFR, future investigations with standardized outcomes, long-term follow-up, and more robust sample sizes are required to draw more definitive conclusions.

The addition of blood flow restriction to resistance exercise in individuals with knee pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Blood flow restriction (BFR) is an effective clinical intervention used to increase strength in healthy individuals. However, its effects on pain and function in individuals with knee pain are unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of adding BFR to resistance exercise for pain relief and improvement of function in patients with knee pain.

METHODS

Systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Medline, Central, Embase, PEDro, Lilacs, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to May 2019. Randomized clinical trials that compared resistance exercise with or without BFR to treat knee pain and function in individuals older than 18 years of age with knee pain were included.

RESULTS

Eight randomized clinical trials met the eligibility criteria and for the quantitative synthesis, five studies were included. The pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) estimate showed that resistance exercises with BFR was not more effective than resistance exercises for reducing pain (SMD: -0.37cm, 95% CI=-0.93, 0.19) and improving knee function (SMD=-0.23 points, 95% CI=-0.71, 0.26) in patients with knee pain.

CONCLUSION

In the short term, there is low quality of evidence that resistance exercise with BFR does not provide significant differences in pain relief and knee function compared to resistance exercises in patients with knee pain. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018102839.

Acute Physiological Responses to Resistance Exercise With Continuous Versus Intermittent Blood Flow Restriction: A Randomized Controlled Trial

The primary goal of this investigation was to examine the physiological responses of blood flow restriction (BFR) resistance exercise (RE) performed with continuous or intermittent BFR and to compare these results to those from conventional high- and low-load RE without BFR. Fourteen men randomly completed the following experimental trials: (1) low-load RE with continuous BFR (cBFR), (2) low-load RE with intermittent BFR (iBFR), (3) low-load RE without BFR (LI), and (4) conventional high-load RE without BFR (HI). For the cBFR, iBFR, and LI exercise trials, participants performed four sets of 30-15-15-15 repetitions of the bilateral leg press (LP) and knee extension (KE) exercises, at an intensity of 20% of their one-repetition maximum (1-RM), at a 1.5-s contraction speed, and with a 1-min rest period between sets. The only difference between the cBFR and iBFR protocols was that the pressure of the cuffs was released during the rest intervals between sets for the iBFR trial. For the HI trial, participants completed four sets of 10 repetitions of the same exercises, at 70% of 1-RM, with a 1-min rest period between sets, and at the same contraction speed. Muscle activity was assessed during each set using superficial electromyography, as well as changes in blood lactate concentration [La^-] from baseline at 5 min post exercise and in muscle swelling and plasma volume (%ΔPV) at 5 and 15 min post exercise. There were no significant differences in muscle activity (p < 0.05) across the cBFR, iBFR, and LI protocols at any time point, whereas they were all significantly lower than HI. There were also no significant (p < 0.05) differences across the three low-load RE conditions for [La^-],%ΔPV, or muscle swelling. HI elicited significantly (p < 0.05) greater responses than cBFR, iBFR, and LI for all the physiological markers measured. In conclusion, RE combined with cBFR or iBFR induce the same acute physiological responses. However, the largest physiological responses are observed with HI, probably because of the significantly greater exercise volumes. Therefore, releasing the pressure of the restrictive cuffs during the rest periods between sets will not hinder the acute physiological responses from BFR RE.

Effect of Blood Flow Restricted Resistance Exercise and Remote Ischemic Conditioning on Functional Capacity and Myocellular Adaptations in Patients With Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) have impaired functional capacity and inferior quality of life. The clinical manifestations are associated with structural and functional impairments in skeletal muscle, emphasizing a need for feasible rehabilitation strategies beyond optimal anticongestive medical treatment. We investigated whether low-load blood flow restricted resistance exercise (BFRRE) or remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) could improve functional capacity and quality of life in patients with CHF and stimulate skeletal muscle myofibrillar and mitochondrial adaptations.

METHODS

We randomized 36 patients with CHF to BFRRE, RIC, or nontreatment control. BFRRE and RIC were performed 3× per week for 6 weeks. Before and after intervention, muscle biopsies, tests of functional capacity, and quality of life assessments were performed. Deuterium oxide was administered throughout the intervention to measure cumulative RNA and subfraction protein synthesis. Changes in muscle fiber morphology and mitochondrial respiratory function were also assessed.

RESULTS

BFRRE improved 6-minute walk test by 39.0 m (CI, 7.0-71.1, P=0.019) compared with control. BFRRE increased maximum isometric strength by 29.7 Nm (CI, 10.8-48.6, P=0.003) compared with control. BFRRE improved quality of life by 5.4 points (CI, -0.04 to 10.9; P=0.052) compared with control. BFRRE increased mitochondrial function by 19.1 pmol/s per milligram (CI, 7.3-30.8; P=0.002) compared with control. RIC did not produce similar changes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate that BFRRE, but not RIC, improves functional capacity, quality of life, and muscle mitochondrial function. Our findings have clinical implications for rehabilitation of patients with CHF and provide new insights on the myopathy accompanying CHF.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03380663.

Perceptual responses to continuous versus intermittent blood flow restriction exercise: A randomized controlled trial

We investigated the perceptual responses to resistance exercise (RE) with continuous and intermittent blood flow restriction (BFR). Fourteen males randomly completed the following exercise conditions: low-load RE with continuous BFR (cBFR), low-load RE with intermittent BFR (iBFR), low-load RE without BFR (LI), and traditional high-load RE (HI). Participants completed 4 sets of 30-15-15-15 repetitions of bilateral leg press and knee extension exercises during the low-load conditions, at 20% of one-repetition maximum (1-RM), a 1.5‑sec metronome-controlled pace, with a 1-min rest interval between sets; HI consisted of 4 sets of 10 repetitions of the same exercises, at 70% 1-RM, with the same pace and rest interval. Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) and discomfort were assessed using psychometric scales before exercise and after each set. RPE displayed no significant differences (p > 0.05) between the BFR conditions for either exercise. Additionally, both BFR conditions elicited significantly (p < 0.05) greater RPE than LI and significantly (p <0.05) lower RPE than HI during both exercises. Rating of discomfort displayed no significant differences between BFR conditions during the first two sets of leg press; however, cBFR evoked greater discomfort compared to iBFR during the last two sets. There were no significant (p > 0.05) differences observed between conditions during the knee extension exercise. Rating of discomfort was similar between the BFR and HI conditions and each were significantly greater than LI during both exercises. Therefore, cBFR and iBFR seem to produce similar perceptual responses, which are greater than LI and lower than HI, but similar in regards to discomfort.

Blood-Flow-Restriction Training: Validity of Pulse Oximetry to Assess Arterial Occlusion Pressure

PURPOSE

Setting the optimal cuff pressure is a crucial part of prescribing blood-flow-restriction training. It is currently recommended to use percentages of each individual's arterial occlusion pressure, which is most accurately determined by Doppler ultrasound (DU). However, the practicality of this gold-standard method in daily training routine is limited due to high costs. An alternative solution is pulse oximetry (PO). The main purpose of this study was to evaluate validity between PO and DU measurements and to investigate whether sex has a potential influence on these variables.

METHODS

A total of 94 subjects were enrolled in the study. Participants were positioned in a supine position, and a 12-cm-wide cuff was applied in a counterbalanced order at the most proximal portion of the right upper and lower limbs. The cuff pressure was successively increased until pulse was no longer detected by DU and PO.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the DU and PO methods when measuring arterial occlusion pressure at the upper limb (P = .308). However, both methods showed considerable disagreement for the lower limbs (P = .001), which was evident in both men (P = .028) and women (P = .008). No sex differences were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

PO is reasonably accurate to determine arterial occlusion pressure of the upper limbs. For lower limbs, PO does not seem to be a valid instrument when assessing the optimal cuff pressure for blood-flow-restriction interventions compared with DU.

Differential muscle hypertrophy and edema responses between high-load and low-load exercise with blood flow restriction

We sought to determine whether early increases in cross-sectional area (CSA) of different muscles composing the quadriceps with low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) were mainly driven by muscle hypertrophy or by edema-induced swelling. We also compared these changes to those promoted by high-load resistance training (HL-RT). In a randomized within-subject design, fifteen healthy, untrained men were submitted to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for CSA and edema-induced muscle swelling assessment (fast spin echo inversion recovery, FSE-STIR). MRI was performed in LL-BFR and HL-RT at baseline (W0) and after 3 weeks (W3), with a further measure after 6 weeks (W6) for HL-RT. Participants were also assessed at these time points for indirect muscle damage markers (range of motion, ROM; muscle soreness, SOR). CSA significantly increased for all the quadriceps muscles, for both LL-BFR and HL-RT at W3 (all P < .05) compared to W0. However, FSE-STIR was elevated at W3 for all the quadriceps muscles only for HL-RT (all P < .0001), not LL-BFR (all P > .05). Significant increases and decreases were shown in SOR and ROM, respectively, for HL-RT in W3 compared to W0 (both P < .05), while these changes were mitigated at W6 compared to W0 (both P > .05). No significant changes in SOR or ROM were demonstrated for LL-BFR across the study. Early increases in CSA with LL-BFR seem to occur without the presence of muscle edema, whereas initial gains obtained by HL-RT were influenced by muscle edema, in addition to muscle hypertrophy.

Type 1 Muscle Fiber Hypertrophy after Blood Flow-restricted Training in Powerlifters

PURPOSE

To investigate the effects of blood flow-restricted resistance exercise (BFRRE) on myofiber areas (MFA), number of myonuclei and satellite cells (SC), muscle size and strength in powerlifters.

METHODS

Seventeen national level powerlifters (25 ± 6 yr [mean ± SD], 15 men) were randomly assigned to either a BFRRE group (n = 9) performing two blocks (weeks 1 and 3) of five BFRRE front squat sessions within a 6.5-wk training period, or a conventional training group (Con; n = 8) performing front squats at 60%-85% of one-repetition maximum (1RM). The BFRRE consisted of four sets (first and last set to voluntary failure) at ~30% of 1RM. Muscle biopsies were obtained from m. vastus lateralis (VL) and analyzed for MFA, myonuclei, SC and capillaries. Cross-sectional areas (CSA) of VL and m. rectus femoris were measured by ultrasonography. Strength was evaluated by maximal voluntary isokinetic torque (MVIT) in knee extension and 1RM in front squat.

RESULTS

BFRRE induced selective increases in type I MFA (BFRRE: 12% vs Con: 0%, P < 0.01) and myonuclear number (BFRRE: 18% vs Con: 0%, P = 0.02). Type II MFA was unaltered in both groups. BFRRE induced greater changes in VL CSA (7.7% vs 0.5%, P = 0.04), which correlated with the increases in MFA of type I fibers (r = 0.81, P = 0.02). No group differences were observed in SC and strength changes, although MVIT increased with BFRRE (P = 0.04), whereas 1RM increased in Con (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Two blocks of low-load BFRRE in the front squat exercise resulted in increased quadriceps CSA associated with preferential hypertrophy and myonuclear addition in type 1 fibers of national level powerlifters.

Six Weeks of Low-Load Blood Flow Restricted and High-Load Resistance Exercise Training Produce Similar Increases in Cumulative Myofibrillar Protein Synthesis and Ribosomal Biogenesis in Healthy Males

Purpose: High-load resistance exercise contributes to maintenance of muscle mass, muscle protein quality, and contractile function by stimulation of muscle protein synthesis (MPS), hypertrophy, and strength gains. However, high loading may not be feasible in several clinical populations. Low-load blood flow restricted resistance exercise (BFRRE) may provide an alternative approach. However, the long-term protein synthetic response to BFRRE is unknown and the myocellular adaptations to prolonged BFRRE are not well described. Methods: To investigate this, 34 healthy young subjects were randomized to 6 weeks of low-load BFRRE, HLRE, or non-exercise control (CON). Deuterium oxide (D2O) was orally administered throughout the intervention period. Muscle biopsies from m. vastus lateralis were collected before and after the 6-week intervention period to assess long-term myofibrillar MPS and RNA synthesis as well as muscle fiber-type-specific cross-sectional area (CSA), satellite cell content, and myonuclei content. Muscle biopsies were also collected in the immediate hours following single-bout exercise to assess signaling for muscle protein degradation. Isometric and dynamic quadriceps muscle strength was evaluated before and after the intervention. Results: Myofibrillar MPS was higher in BFRRE (1.34%/day, p < 0.01) and HLRE (1.12%/day, p < 0.05) compared to CON (0.96%/day) with no significant differences between exercise groups. Muscle RNA synthesis was higher in BFRRE (0.65%/day, p < 0.001) and HLRE (0.55%/day, p < 0.01) compared to CON (0.38%/day) and both training groups increased RNA content, indicating ribosomal biogenesis in response to exercise. BFRRE and HLRE both activated muscle degradation signaling. Muscle strength increased 6-10% in BFRRE (p < 0.05) and 13-23% in HLRE (p < 0.01). Dynamic muscle strength increased to a greater extent in HLRE (p < 0.05). No changes in type I and type II muscle fiber-type-specific CSA, satellite cell content, or myonuclei content were observed. Conclusions: These results demonstrate that BFRRE increases long-term muscle protein turnover, ribosomal biogenesis, and muscle strength to a similar degree as HLRE. These findings emphasize the potential application of low-load BFRRE to stimulate muscle protein turnover and increase muscle function in clinical populations where high loading is untenable.

Blood Flow Restriction Training in Rehabilitation: A Useful Adjunct or Lucy's Latest Trick?

New approaches that promise more for less rarely pan out despite the hopes of physical therapists. In this Viewpoint, the author discusses blood flow restriction training, an intervention claiming that some low-intensity exercise performed while wearing a blood pressure cuff will result in strength gains, improved performance, shorter postexercise recovery, and pain reduction. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(5):294-298. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.0608.

Perceptual changes to progressive resistance training with and without blood flow restriction

The purpose was to examine changes in the perceptual responses to lifting a very low load (15% one repetition maximum (1RM)) with and without (15/0) different pressures [40% (15/40) and 80% (15/80) arterial occlusion pressure] and compare that to traditional high load (70/0) resistance exercise. Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) and discomfort were measured following each set of exercise. In addition, resting arterial occlusion pressure was measured prior to exercise. Assessments were made in training sessions 1, 9, and 16 for the upper and lower body. Data are presented as means and 95% CI. There were changes in RPE in the upper body with condition 15/40 [-2.1 (-3.4, -0.850)] and 15/80 [-2.4 (-3.6, -1.1)] decreasing by the end of training. In the lower body, RPE decreased in condition 15/40 [-1.4 (-2.3, -0.431)] by the end of the training study. There was a main effect of time in the upper body with all conditions decreasing discomfort. In the lower body, all conditions decreased except for 15/80. For arterial occlusion pressure, there were differences across time in the 15/40 condition and the 15/80 condition in the upper body. Repeated exposure to blood flow restriction may dampen the perceptual responses over time.