Comparison of the acute perceptual and blood pressure response to heavy load and light load blood flow restriction resistance exercise in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction patients and non-injured populations

Lower limb blood flow occlusion increases systemic pressor response without increasing brachial arterial blood flow redistribution in women

This study was conducted to investigate the systemic hemodynamic and vascular changes in women during and after two commonly used clinical blood flow restriction (BFR) pressures at rest. There are minimal data regarding the independent effects of BFR on hemodynamic and systemic vascular changes due to pressor response, particularly among women. Therefore, this study investigated BFR-induced alterations in pressor response and systemic flow redistribution at rest during two commonly used pressures (50% and 80% limb occlusion pressure [LOP]). Fifteen women (22.1 ± 4.2 years) completed two randomised sessions involving 8-min of bilateral, lower limb restriction at 50% or 80% LOP followed by 8-min of recovery post-deflation. Changes in vascular (arterial diameter [DIA], time-averaged mean velocity [TAMV], volume flow [VF], and area) and hemodynamic (heart rate [HR] and blood pressure) measures over time (pre-, during, post-occlusion) and by session (50% vs. 80% LOP) were tested using repeated measures analysis of variance. Repeated measures correlations (rrm) quantified common intraindividual associations between BFR-induced hemodynamic and vascular responses. HR increased from baseline during 50% LOP and remained elevated during recovery (p < 0.05). HR increased from baseline during 80% LOP, while tibial VF and TAMV decreased (p < 0.03 for all). HR and TAMV values returned to baseline during recovery, while brachial artery VF decreased (p < 0.05). Changes in HR, brachial VF, and brachial TAMV were similar between 50% and 80% LOP (rrm = 0.32-0.70, p < 0.05 for all). At 80% LOP, changes in HR were positively correlated with brachial VF (rrm = 0.38) and TAMV (rrm = 0.43) and negatively correlated with tibial VF (rrm = -0.36) and TAMV (rrm = -0.30) (p < 0.05 for all). Results suggest that BFR at 80% LOP elicits an acute systemic pressor reflex without concomitant increases in brachial arterial flow, while 50% LOP elicits a subdued response.

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.

Intermittent blood flow restriction with low-load resistance training for older adults with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial protocol

BACKGROUND

Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a chronic musculoskeletal disorder characterized by pain and functional impairment. Blood flow restriction (BFR) with low-load resistance training (LLRT) demonstrates a similar improvement in clinical outcomes to high-load resistance training (HLRT) in treating KOA. It has not been established whether intermittent blood flow restriction (iBFR) with LLRT can lead to clinical outcomes that are comparable to those produced by continuous blood flow restriction (cBFR) with LLRT and HLRT. The aim of the proposed study is to evaluate the efficacy of iBFR with LLRT on pain, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), muscle strength, muscle mass, physical function, perceptions of discomfort and effort, and adherence in KOA patients.

METHODS

This is a three-arm, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial utilizing blinded assessors. Two hundred thirteen participants will be randomly allocated to one of the following three groups: iBFR group-receiving 4 months of LLRT with iBFR, twice weekly (n = 71); cBFR group-receiving 4 months of LLRT with cBFR, twice weekly (n = 71); or HLRT group-receiving 4 months of HLRT without BFR, twice weekly (n = 71). The primary outcome is pain. The secondary outcomes include the WOMAC, muscle strength, muscle mass, physical function, perceptions of discomfort and effort, and adherence. Pain and WOMAC will be measured at the baseline and 4 and 12 months after randomizations. Muscle strength, muscle mass, and physical function will be measured at the baseline and 4 months after randomizations. The perceptions of discomfort and effort will be measured during the first and final sessions.

DISCUSSION

BFR with LLRT has a similar improvement in clinical outcomes as HLRT. However, cBFR may cause elevated ratings of perceived exertion and local discomfort, compromising patient tolerability and treatment adherence. If iBFR with LLRT could produce improvement in clinical outcomes analogous to those of HLRT and iBFR with LLRT, it could be considered an alternative approach for treating patients with KOA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2300072820. Registered on June 26, 2023.

Outcomes of Blood Flow Restriction Training After ACL Reconstruction in NCAA Division I Athletes

Background

Blood flow restriction training (BFRT) is a safe and potentially effective adjunctive therapeutic modality for postoperative rehabilitation related to various knee pathologies. However, there is a paucity of literature surrounding BFRT in high-performance athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).

Purpose

To (1) compare the overall time to return to sports (RTS) in a cohort of National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I athletes who underwent a standardized rehabilitation program either with or without BFRT after ACLR and (2) identify a postoperative time interval for which BFRT has the maximum therapeutic benefit.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

A total of 55 student-athletes who underwent ACLR between 2000 and 2023 while participating in NCAA Division I sports at a single institution were included in this study. Athletes were allocated to 1 of 2 groups based on whether they participated in a standardized postoperative rehabilitation program augmented with BFRT (BFRT group; n = 22) or completed the standardized protocol alone (non-BFRT group [control]; n = 33). Our primary outcome measure was time to RTS. The secondary outcome measure was handheld dynamometry quadriceps strength testing at various postoperative time points, converted to a limb symmetry index (LSI). Quadriceps strength was not tested between the BFRT and non-BFRT groups because of the limited amount of data on the control group.

Results

The mean age at the date of surgery was 18.59 ± 1.10 years for the BFRT group and 19.45 ± 1.30 years for the non-BFRT group (P = .011), and the mean RTS time was 409 ± 134 days from surgery for the BFRT group and 332 ± 100 days for the non-BFRT cohort (P = .047). For the BFRT group, the mean quadriceps strength LSI increased by 0.67% (95% CI, 0.53%-0.81%) for every week of rehabilitation, and there was a significantly positive rate of change in quadriceps strength in weeks 13-16 compared with weeks 9-12 (ΔLSI, 8.22%; P < .001).

Conclusion

In elite NCAA Division I athletes, a statistically significant delay was observed in RTS with BFRT compared with standardized physical therapy alone after undergoing ACLR. There also appeared to be an early window during the rehabilitation period where BFRT had a beneficial impact on quadriceps strength.

Acute and Chronic Effects of Blood Flow Restriction Training in Physically Active Patients With Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Muscle atrophy and loss of knee function are common findings after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Rehabilitation through blood flow restriction (BFR) has gained clinical relevance when combined with low loads to improve these disorders in recent years.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the rehabilitation effectiveness of ACL reconstruction with the use of BFR on pain, functionality, strength, and muscle mass in physically active people.

DATA SOURCES

A search of PubMed, Web of Science, and MEDLINE was performed on March 31, 2023, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials with active adults who underwent ACL surgery were included. They had to compare conventional treatments with the use of BFR, reporting values of pain, functionality, strength, or cross-sectional area (CSA). Articles whose participants presented concomitant injuries and whose intervention combined the use of BFR with treatments other than resistance training were excluded.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 2.

DATA EXTRACTION

Study design, population, cuff pressure, and main outcomes including strength, quadriceps CSA, pain, and functionality.

RESULTS

Six studies out of a total of 389 were included (152 participants; 90 men and 62 women). These included studies showed no differences on CSA or strength when comparing BFR training with high loads exercise. BFR has demonstrated improvements in knee functionality and pain compared with other interventions such as immobilization or high loads training.

CONCLUSION

The use of low loads combined with BFR improves pain, strength, functionality, and CSA. In addition, knee pain reduction and functionality are greater with BFR compared with the use of high loads or immobilization.

Update on Current Concepts of Blood Flow Restriction in the Perioperative Period of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Anterior cruciate ligament tears or ruptures are common orthopedic injuries. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is an orthopedic procedure allowing for earlier return to sports, improved maintenance of lifestyle demands, and restored knee stability and kinematics. A perioperative rehabilitative adjunct recently gaining interest is blood flow restriction (BFR), a method in which temporary restriction of blood flow to a chosen extremity is introduced and can be used as early as a few days postoperative. There has been increasing investigation and recent literature regarding BFR. This review synthesizes current concepts of BFR use in the ACLR perioperative period. [Orthopedics. 2023;46(6):e333-e340.].

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.

Low-Intensity Blood Flow Restriction Exercises Modulate Pain Sensitivity in Healthy Adults: A Systematic Review

Low-intensity exercise with blood flow restriction (LIE-BFR) has been proposed as an effective intervention to induce hypoalgesia in both healthy individuals and patients with knee pain. Nevertheless, there is no systematic review reporting the effect of this method on pain threshold. We aimed to evaluate the following: (i) the effect of LIE-BFR on pain threshold compared to other interventions in patients or healthy individuals; and (ii) how different types of applications may influence hypoalgesic response. We included randomized controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of LIE-BFR alone or as an additive intervention compared with controls or other interventions. Pain threshold was the outcome measure. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro score. Six studies with 189 healthy adults were included. Five studies were rated with 'moderate' and 'high' methodological quality. Due to substantial clinical heterogeneity, quantitative synthesis could not be performed. All studies used pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) to assess pain sensitivity. LIE-BFR resulted in significant increases in PPTs compared to conventional exercise at local and remote sites 5 min post-intervention. Higher-pressure BFR results in greater exercise-induced hypoalgesia compared to lower pressure, while exercise to failure produces a similar reduction in pain sensitivity with or without BFR. Based on our findings, LIE-BFR can be an effective intervention to increase pain threshold; however, the effect depends on the exercise methodology. Further research is necessary to investigate the effectiveness of this method in reducing pain sensitivity in patients with pain symptomatology.

Blood Flow Restriction Training preserves knee flexion and extension torque following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review

Background

There is inconsistency in the literature comparing the outcomes of Blood Flow Restriction Training versus Traditional Post-Operative Rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Purpose

This study aimed to determine if Blood Flow Restriction Training can limit the loss of knee extension and knee flexion muscle torque during early recovery from anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction better than Traditional Post-Operative Rehabilitation.

Methods

Three databases (PubMed, Embase, and Scopus) were searched for level 1 randomized controlled trials pertaining to Blood Flow Restriction Training after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. To maximize consistency among included studies, only studies which used knee flexion and knee extension muscle torque as the primary outcome measures were included. Search terms included "cruciate + occlusion", "cruciate + blood flow restriction", and "cruciate + occlusion training".

Results

Two level 1 trials with training protocols of 8 and 16 weeks yielded isokinetic knee flexion torque data in support of Blood Flow Restriction Training. Both trials demonstrated that Blood Flow Restriction Training also yielded significantly increased isokinetic knee extension torque compared to control groups.

Conclusion

The highest-quality level 1 trials evaluating knee extension and knee extension strength via isokinetic torque agree that Blood Flow Restriction Training limits post-operative losses of knee flexion and extension strength. No adverse events were reported in either study. Except for patients of whom Blood Flow Restriction is contraindicated, clinicians may consider utilizing Blood Flow Restriction Training from week 2 of the post-operative period through the conclusion of outpatient rehabilitation using low intensities, multiple times per week; however, further studies comparing Blood Flow Restriction Training protocols are necessary before an optimal protocol could be confidently recommended.

Blood flow restriction training promotes functional recovery of knee joint in patients after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy: A randomized clinical trial

Purpose: To explore the effect of blood flow restriction training (BFRT) on the recovery of knee function in patients after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM).

Methods: Forty patients undergoing APM surgery were included in this parallel group, two-arm, single-assessor blinded, randomized clinical trial. The subjects were randomly divided into two groups: routine rehabilitation group (RR Group, n = 20) and routine rehabilitation + blood flow restriction training group (RR + BFRT Group, n = 20). One subject in each group dropped out during the experiment. All patients received 8 weeks of routine rehabilitation starting from the second day after APM. In addition, patients in the RR + BFRT group required additional BFRT twice a week. Visual analogue scale (VAS) score, range of motion (ROM), one-leg standing test (OLST) score, Lysholm knee score, quadriceps muscle strength, quadriceps thickness, and thigh circumference were evaluated at preoperative, postoperative, 4 and 8 weeks after surgery. SPSS 25.0 software was used for statistical analysis of the data. Repeated measures ANOVA was used if the data were normally distributed and had homogeneity of variance. Generalized estimating equations were chosen if the data were not normally distributed or had homogeneity of variance.

Results: There were no significant differences in VAS score, ROM, OLST score, Lysholm knee score, quadriceps muscle strength, quadriceps thickness, and thigh circumference between the two groups before surgery (p > 0.05). Compared with postoperative, VAS score, ROM, OLST score, Lysholm knee score, and thigh circumference were significantly improved in the RR group (p < 0.05), while quadriceps muscle strength and quadriceps thickness were not significantly enhanced at 8 weeks postoperatively (p > 0.05). However, VAS score, ROM, OLST score, Lysholm knee score, quadriceps muscle strength, quadriceps thickness, and thigh circumference were all significantly improved in the RR + BFRT group at 8 weeks postoperatively (p < 0.05). Furthermore, compared with the RR group, VAS score (50% vs. 86%), ROM (7.9% vs. 16.0%), OLST score (57.3% vs. 130.1%), Lysholm knee score (38.4% vs. 55.7%), relative peak torque (11.0% vs. 84.7%), mean power (20.6% vs. 88.1%), rectus femoris thickness (0.40% vs. 13.0%), vastus medialis (0.29% vs. 5.32%), vastus lateralis (0% vs. 6.2%), vastus internus (0% vs. 5.8%), and thigh circumference (2.7% vs. 5.8%) in the RR + BFRT group were significantly improved at 4 and 8 weeks postoperatively (p < 0.05).

Conclusion: BFRT combined with routine rehabilitation training can better promote the recovery of knee joint function in patients after APM, especially the improvement of quadriceps muscle strength and thickness.

The Effects of Blood Flow Restriction in Patients Undergoing Knee Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Blood flow restriction (BFR) training has been shown to have beneficial effects in reducing quadriceps muscle atrophy and improving strength in patients with various knee pathologies. Furthermore, the effectiveness of BFR training in patients undergoing knee surgery has been investigated to determine if its use can improve clinical outcomes.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the effectiveness of BFR training in patients undergoing knee surgery. We hypothesized that BFR, before or after surgery, would improve clinical outcomes as well as muscle strength and volume.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis of peer-reviewed literature was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases from 1980 to present. Search results were limited to those assessing BFR training in patients undergoing knee surgery published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal in English. Selected studies subsequently underwent data extraction, methodological quality assessment, and data analysis.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were eligible, including anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (n = 10) and knee arthroscopy (n = 1). Two studies specifically assessed BFR use in the preoperative time frame. For the meta-analysis, including 4 studies, the primary outcome variables included the cross-sectional area of the quadratus femoris muscle group assessed with magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasonography, and patient-reported outcome measure scores. The results demonstrated that BFR use in the postoperative time period can lead to a significant improvement in the cross-sectional area when quantifying muscle atrophy. However, there were no significant differences found for patient-reported outcome measures between the included studies. It should be noted that 4 of the included papers in this review reported increases in clinical strength when using BFR in the postoperative setting. Last, preoperative BFR training did not show any significant clinical benefit between the 2 studies.

CONCLUSION

This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to study the effects of BFR in patients undergoing knee surgery. The results of this analysis show that BFR in the postoperative period after knee surgery can improve quadriceps muscle bulk compared with a control group. However, future research should examine the effects of preconditioning with BFR before surgery. Lastly, BFR protocols need to be further investigated to determine which provide the best patient outcomes. This will help standardize this type of treatment modality for future studies.

Blood Flow Restriction Resistance Training in Tendon Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review on Intervention Parameters, Physiological Effects, and Outcomes

Objective

To identify current evidence on blood flow restriction training (BFRT) in tendon injuries and healthy tendons, evaluating physiological tendon effects, intervention parameters, and outcomes.

Methods

This scoping review was reported in accordance with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Databases searched included MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, EMBase, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane library (Controlled trials, Systematic reviews), and five trial registries. Two independent reviewers screened studies at title/abstract and full text. Following screening, data was extracted and charted, and presented as figures and tables alongside a narrative synthesis. Any study design conducted on adults, investigating the effects of BFRT on healthy tendons or tendon pathology were included. Data were extracted on physiological tendon effects, intervention parameters and outcomes with BFRT.

Results

Thirteen studies were included, three on tendinopathy, two on tendon ruptures, and eight on healthy Achilles, patellar, and supraspinatus tendons. A variety of outcomes were assessed, including pain, function, strength, and tendon morphological and mechanical properties, particularly changes in tendon thickness. BFRT intervention parameters were heterogeneously prescribed.

Conclusion

Despite a dearth of studies to date on the effects of BFRT on healthy tendons and in tendon pathologies, preliminary evidence for beneficial effects of BFRT on tendons and clinical outcomes is encouraging. As BFRT is a relatively novel method, definitive conclusions, and recommendations on BFRT in tendon rehabilitation cannot be made at present, which should be addressed in future research, due to the potential therapeutic benefits highlighted in this review.

Effect of Low-Load Blood Flow Restriction Training After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

Background

Quadriceps strength and mass deficits are common after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Postoperatively, heavy load resistance training can have detrimental effects on knee joint pain and ACL graft laxity. Therefore, low-load blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) training has been suggested as an alternative to traditional strength rehabilitation.

Purpose

The present systematic review aimed to investigate the effect of LL-BFR training on quadriceps strength, quadriceps mass, knee joint pain, and ACL graft laxity after ACL reconstruction compared to non-BFR training.

Study design

Systematic review.

Methods

A systematic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE.com, Cochrane Library/Wiley, CINAHL/Ebsco and Web of Science/Clarivate Analytics was performed on 19 February 2021. Studies were included if they compared LL-BFR and non-BFR training after ACL reconstruction with pre- and post-intervention quadriceps strength, quadriceps mass, knee joint pain or ACL graft laxity measurement. Systematic reviews, editorials, case reports and studies not published in a scientific peer reviewed journal were excluded. The risk of bias of randomized studies was assessed with the use of the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.

Results

A total of six randomized controlled trials were included. Random sequence generation and allocation concealment was defined as high risk in two of the six studies. In all studies blinding of participants and personnel was unclear or could not be performed. The included studies used different LL-BFR and non-BFR protocols with heterogeneous outcome measurements. Therefore, a qualitative analysis was performed. Two of the six studies assessed quadriceps strength and demonstrated significant greater quadriceps strength after LL-BFR compared to non-BFR training. Quadriceps mass was evaluated in four studies. Two studies observed significant greater quadriceps mass after LL-BFR compared to non-BFR training, while two studies observed no significant difference in quadriceps mass. Knee joint pain was assessed in three studies with significantly less knee joint pain after LL-BFR compared to non-BFR training. Two studies evaluated ACL graft laxity and observed no significant difference in ACL graft laxity between LL-BFR and non-BFR training.

Conclusion

The results of this systematic review indicate that LL-BFR training after ACL reconstruction may be beneficial on quadriceps strength, quadriceps mass, and knee joint pain compared to non-BFR training with non-detrimental effects on ACL graft laxity. However, more randomized controlled trials with standardized intervention protocols and outcome measurements are needed to add evidence on the clinical value of LL-BFR training.

Level of evidence

2a.

Title: Blood flow restricted exercise training: Perspectives of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and health professionals

Objective

This descriptive qualitative study explored perspectives of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and health professionals concerning blood flow restricted exercise (BFRE) training.

Methods

People living with COPD and health professionals (exercise physiologists, physiotherapists, and hospital-based respiratory nurses and doctors) participated in interviews or focus groups, which included information about BFRE training and a facilitated discussion of positive aspects, barriers and concerns about BFRE training as a possible exercise-based intervention. Sessions were audio-recorded, and transcript data analysed using inductive content analysis.

Results

Thirty-one people participated (people with COPD n = 6; health professionals n = 25). All participant groups expressed positive perceptions of BFRE as a potential alternative low-intensity exercise mode where health benefits might be achieved. Areas of overlap in perceived barriers and concerns included the need to address the risk of potential adverse events, suitability of training sites and identifying processes to appropriately screen potential candidates.

Discussion

While potential benefits were identified, concerns about determining who is safe and suitable to participate, delivery processes, health professional training and effects on a variety of health-related outcomes need to be addressed before implementation of BFRE training for people with COPD.

Tolerance to Intermittent vs. Continuous Blood Flow Restriction Training: A meta-Analysis

The proven beneficial effects of low-load blood flow restriction training on strength gain has led to further exploration into its application during rehabilitation, where the traditional use of heavy loads may not be feasible. With current evidence showing that low-load blood flow restriction training may be less well tolerated than heavy-load resistance training, this review was conducted to decipher whether intermittently deflating the pressure cuff during rest intervals of a training session improves tolerance to exercise, without compromising strength. Four databases were searched for randomized controlled trials that compared the effect of intermittent versus continuous blood flow restriction training on outcomes of exercise tolerance or strength in adults. Nine studies were identified, with six included in the meta-analysis. No significant difference in rate of perceived exertion was found (SMD-0.06, 95% CI-0.41 to 0.29, p=0.73, I ²=80%). Subgroup analysis excluding studies that introduced bias showed a shift towards favoring the use of intermittent blood flow restriction training (SMD-0.42, 95% CI-0.87 to 0.03, p=0.07, I ²=0%). There was no significant difference in strength gain. Intermittent cuff deflations during training intervals does not improve tolerance to exercise during blood flow restriction training.

Effects of Blood Flow Restriction Training on Muscle Strength and Pain in Patients With Knee Injuries: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Due to the pain caused by knee injuries, low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction (L-BFR) may be a potential adjuvant therapeutic tool in the rehabilitation of knee injuries. This review aimed to analyze the effectiveness of L-BFR training modality in knee rehabilitation.

DESIGN

A meta-analysis was conducted to determine the potential impact of blood flow restriction on patients with knee injuries. PubMed, EBSCO, and Web of Science databases were searched for eligible studies from January 2000 until January 2020. The mean differences of the data were analyzed using Revman 5.3 software with a 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

Nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These studies involved 179 patients who received L-BFR, 96 patients who underwent high-load resistance training, and another 94 patients who underwent low-load resistance training. The analysis of pooled data showed that patients in both the L-BFR (standardized mean difference, 0.83 [0.53, 1.14], P < 0.01) and high-load resistance training (standardized mean difference, -0.09 [-0.43, 0.24], P = 0.58) groups experienced an increase in muscle strength after the training. In addition, pain score was significantly reduced in the L-BFR group compared with the other two groups (standardized mean difference, -0.61 [-1.19, -0.03], P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Muscle strength increased after L-BFR and high-load resistance training compared with low-load resistance training. Furthermore, pain score was significantly reduced after L-BFR. Hence, L-BFR is a potential intervention to be applied in rehabilitation of knee injuries.

Comparison of Blood Flow Restriction Training versus Non-Occlusive Training in Patients with Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction or Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review

Patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and patients suffering from knee osteoarthritis (KOA) have been shown to have quadriceps muscle weakness and/or atrophy in common. The physiological mechanisms of blood flow restriction (BFR) training could facilitate muscle hypertrophy. The purpose of this systematic review is to investigate the effects of BFR training on quadriceps cross-sectional area (CSA), pain perception, function and quality of life on these patients compared to a non-BFR training. A literature research was performed using Web of Science, PEDro, Scopus, MEDLINE, Dialnet, CINAHL and The Cochrane Library databases. The main inclusion criteria were that papers were English or Spanish language reports of randomized controlled trials involving patients with ACL reconstruction or suffering from KOA. The initial research identified 159 publications from all databases; 10 articles were finally included. The search was conducted from April to June 2020. Four of these studies found a significant improvement in strength. A significant increase in CSA was found in two studies. Pain significantly improved in four studies and only one study showed a significant improvement in functionality/quality of life. Low-load training with BFR may be an effective option treatment for increasing quadriceps strength and CSA, but more research is needed.

Blood Flow Restriction Exercise: Effects of Sex, Cuff Width, and Cuff Pressure on Perceived Lower Body Discomfort

Narrow cuffs cause less discomfort than wide cuffs immediately following elbow flexion exercise in combination with blood flow restriction, possibly due to a balling up effect of the bicep underneath the cuff. In this study, we sought to examine the impact of cuff width, sex, and pressure on perceived discomfort in the quadriceps, following knee extensions. One hundred participants completed three separate experiments. In Experiment 1, we compared participants' discomfort at rest after using a 5 and a 12 cm cuff. In Experiment 2, we compared the discomfort from these two cuffs after four sets of exercise. In Experiment 3, we used the same exercise protocol as in Experiment 2, but we compared the discomfort between a 12 cm cuff inflated to an inappropriate pressure and a 12 cm cuff inflated to the recommended pressure. We found no sex differences in Experiments 1 and 3. In Experiment 1, the narrow cuff had higher discomfort (16 vs 12 AU). In Experiment 2, men reported higher discomfort than women, with no discomfort differences related to cuff width, though narrow cuffs were most preferred. In Experiment 3, cuffs inflated to a pressure intended for narrow cuffs were associated with higher discomfort, and participants preferred to use it less. In summary, we found no strong evidence for discomfort differences due to cuff width. There was some indication that participants preferred narrow cuffs with pressures inflated to the recommended relative pressure. Muscle shape may influence how cuff width affects discomfort.

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.

Comparing the Effectiveness of Blood Flow Restriction and Traditional Heavy Load Resistance Training in the Post-Surgery Rehabilitation of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Patients: A UK National Health Service Randomised Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

We implemented a blood flow restriction resistance training (BFR-RT) intervention during an 8-week rehabilitation programme in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) patients within a National Health Service setting.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of BFR-RT and standard-care traditional heavy-load resistance training (HL-RT) at improving skeletal muscle hypertrophy and strength, physical function, pain and effusion in ACLR patients following surgery.

METHODS

28 patients scheduled for unilateral ACLR surgery with hamstring autograft were recruited for this parallel-group, two-arm, single-assessor blinded, randomised clinical trial following appropriate power analysis. Following surgery, a criteria-driven approach to rehabilitation was utilised and participants were block randomised to either HL-RT at 70% repetition maximum (1RM) (n = 14) or BFR-RT (n = 14) at 30% 1RM. Participants completed 8 weeks of biweekly unilateral leg press training on both limbs, totalling 16 sessions, alongside standard hospital rehabilitation. Resistance exercise protocols were designed consistent with standard recommended protocols for each type of exercise. Scaled maximal isotonic strength (10RM), muscle morphology of the vastus lateralis of the injured limb, self-reported function, Y-balance test performance and knee joint pain, effusion and range of motion (ROM) were assessed at pre-surgery, post-surgery, mid-training and post-training. Knee joint laxity and scaled maximal isokinetic knee extension and flexion strength at 60°/s, 150°/s and 300°/s were measured at pre-surgery and post-training.

RESULTS

Four participants were lost, with 24 participants completing the study (12 per group). There were no adverse events or differences between groups for any baseline anthropometric variable or pre- to post-surgery change in any outcome measure. Scaled 10RM strength significantly increased in the injured limb (104 ± 30% and 106 ± 43%) and non-injured limb (33 ± 13% and 39 ± 17%) with BFR-RT and HL-RT, respectively, with no group differences. Significant increases in knee extension and flexion peak torque were observed at all speeds in the non-injured limb with no group differences. Significantly greater attenuation of knee extensor peak torque loss at 150°/s and 300°/s and knee flexor torque loss at all speeds was observed with BFR-RT. No group differences in knee extensor peak torque loss were found at 60°/s. Significant and comparable increases in muscle thickness (5.8 ± 0.2% and 6.7 ± 0.3%) and pennation angle (4.1 ± 0.3% and 3.4 ± 0.1%) were observed with BFR-RT and HL-RT, respectively, with no group differences. No significant changes in fascicle length were observed. Significantly greater and clinically important increases in several measures of self-reported function (50-218 ± 48% vs. 35-152 ± 56%), Y-balance performance (18-59 ± 22% vs. 18-33 ± 19%), ROM (78 ± 22% vs. 48 ± 13%) and reductions in knee joint pain (67 ± 15% vs. 39 ± 12%) and effusion (6 ± 2% vs. 2 ± 2%) were observed with BFR-RT compared to HL-RT, respectively.

CONCLUSION

BFR-RT can improve skeletal muscle hypertrophy and strength to a similar extent to HL-RT with a greater reduction in knee joint pain and effusion, leading to greater overall improvements in physical function. Therefore, BFR-RT may be more appropriate for early rehabilitation in ACLR patient populations within the National Health Service.

Is there rationale for the cuff pressures prescribed for blood flow restriction exercise? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Blood flow restriction exercise has increasingly broad applications among healthy and clinical populations. Ensuring the technique is applied in a safe, controlled, and beneficial way for target populations is essential. Individualized cuff pressures are a favored method for achieving this. However, there remains marked inconsistency in how individualized cuff pressures are applied.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the cuff pressures used in the broader blood flow restriction exercise literature, and determine whether there is clear justification for the choice of pressure prescribed.

METHODS

Studies were included in this review from database searches if they employed an experimental design using original data, involved either acute or chronic exercise using blood flow restriction, and they assessed limb or arterial occlusion pressure to determine an individualized cuff pressure. Methodologies of the studies were evaluated using a bespoke quality assessment tool.

RESULTS

Fifty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. Individualized cuff pressures ranged from 30% to 100% arterial occlusion pressure. Only 7 out of 52 studies attempted to justify the individualized cuff pressure applied during exercise. The mean quality rating for all studies was 11.1 ± 1.2 out of 13.

CONCLUSIONS

The broader blood flow restriction exercise literature uses markedly heterogeneous prescription variables despite using individualized cuff pressures. This is problematic in the absence of any clear justification for the individualized cuff pressures selected. Systematically measuring and reporting all relevant acute responses and training adaptations to the full spectrum of BFR pressures alongside increased clarity around the methodology used during blood flow restriction exercise is paramount.

The effect of blood flow restriction exercise on exercise-induced hypoalgesia and endogenous opioid and endocannabinoid mechanisms of pain modulation

This study aimed to investigate and compare the magnitude of exercise-induced hypoalgesia (EIH) with low-intensity blood flow restriction (BFR) resistance exercise (RE) at varying pressures to other intensities of resistance exercise and examine endogenous mechanisms of pain reduction. Twelve individuals performed four experimental trials involving unilateral leg press exercise in a randomized crossover design: low-load RE at 30% of one repetition maximum (1RM), high-load RE (70% 1RM), and BFR-RE (30% 1RM) at a low and high pressure. BFR pressure was prescribed relative to limb occlusion pressure at 40% and 80% for the low- and high-pressure trials. Pressure pain thresholds (PPT) were assessed before and 5 min and 24 h following exercise in exercising and nonexercising muscles. Venous blood samples were collected at the same timepoints to determine plasma concentrations of beta-endorphin and 2-arachidonoylglycerol. High-pressure BFR-RE increased PPTs in the exercising limb to a greater extent than all other trials. Comparable systemic EIH effects were observed with HLRE and both BFR-RE trials. PPTs in the exercising limb remained elevated above baseline at 24 h postexercise following both BFR-RE trials. Postexercise plasma beta-endorphin concentration was elevated during the BFR-RE trials. No changes to 2-arachidonoylglycerol concentration were observed. High pressure BFR-RE causes a greater EIH response in the exercising limb that persists for up to 24 h following exercise. The reduction in pain sensitivity with BFR-RE is partly driven by endogenous opioid production of beta-endorphin. BFR-RE should be investigated as a possible pain-modulation tool in individuals with acute and chronic pain.

NEW & NOTEWORTHY High-pressure blood flow restriction (BFR) causes a greater hypoalgesia response in the exercising limb (48%) compared with light and heavy load resistance exercise (10–34%). Performing light load resistance exercise with BFR causes systemic hypoalgesia comparable with heavy load resistance exercise (10–18%). BFR resistance exercise prolonged the exercise-induced hypoalgesia response for 24 h in the exercising limb (15% and 24%, respectively). Activation of endogenous opioid production and a conditioned pain modulation effect partly mediate the relationship between exercise and hypoalgesia.

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.

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.

Blood Flow Restricted Exercise and Discomfort: A Review

Spitz, RW, Wong, V, Bell, ZW, Viana, RB, Chatakondi, RN, Abe, T, and Loenneke, JP. Blood flow restricted exercise and discomfort: A Review. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2020-Blood flow restriction exercise involves using a pneumatic cuff or elastic band to restrict arterial inflow into the muscle and block venous return out of the muscle during the exercise bout. The resultant ischemia in conjunction with low-load exercise has shown to be beneficial with increasing muscle size and strength. However, a limitation of using blood flow restriction (BFR) is the accompanying discomfort associated with this type of exercise. Factors that may influence discomfort are applied pressure, width of the cuff, cuff material, sex, and training to failure. The goal of this review was to evaluate the existing literature and elucidate how these factors can be manipulated to reduce discomfort during exercise as well as provide possible directions for future research. Thirty-eight different studies were located investigating BFR and discomfort. It was found that BFR training causes more discomfort than exercise without BFR. However, chronic use of BFR may increase tolerability, but discomfort may still be elevated over traditional non-blood flow restricted exercise. Discomfort can be attenuated by the application of lower applied pressures and stopping short of task failure. Finally, in the upper body, wider cuffs seem to increase ratings of discomfort compared with more narrow cuffs. In conclusion, applying the proper-sized cuff and making the applied pressure relative to both the individual and the cuff applied may attenuate discomfort. Reducing discomfort during exercise may help increase adherence to exercise and rehabilitation programs.

Low intensity blood flow restriction exercise: Rationale for a hypoalgesia effect

Exercise-induced hypoalgesia is characterised by a reduction in pain sensitivity following exercise. Recently, low intensity exercise performed with blood flow restriction has been shown to induce hypoalgesia. The purpose of this manuscript is to discuss the mechanisms of exercise-induced hypoalgesia and provide rationale as to why low intensity exercise performed with blood flow restriction may induce hypoalgesia. Research into exercise-induced hypoalgesia has identified several potential mechanisms, including opioid and endocannabinoid-mediated pain inhibition, conditioned pain modulation, recruitment of high threshold motor units, exercise-induced metabolite production and an interaction between cardiovascular and pain regulatory systems. We hypothesise that several mechanisms consistent with prolonged high intensity exercise may drive the hypoalgesia effect observed with blood flow restriction exercise. These are likely triggered by the high level of intramuscular stress in the exercising muscle generated by blood flow restriction including hypoxia, accumulation of metabolites, accelerated fatigue onset and ischemic pain. Therefore, blood flow restriction exercise may induce hypoalgesia through similar mechanisms to prolonged higher intensity exercise, but at lower intensities, by changing local tissue physiology, highlighting the importance of the blood flow restriction stimulus. The potential to use blood flow restriction exercise as a pain modulation tool has important implications following acute injury and surgery, and for several load compromised populations with chronic pain.

Examination of the comfort and pain experienced with blood flow restriction training during post-surgery rehabilitation of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction patients: A UK National Health Service trial

OBJECTIVE

Examine the comfort and pain experienced with blow flow restriction resistance training (BFR-RT) compared to standard care heavy load resistance training (HL-RT) during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) patient rehabilitation.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

United Kingdom National Health Service.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty eight patients undergoing unilateral ACLR surgery with hamstring autograft were recruited. Following surgery participants were block randomised to either HL-RT at 70% repetition maximum (1RM) (n = 14) or BFR-RT (n = 14) at 30% 1RM and completed 8 weeks of twice weekly unilateral leg press training on both limbs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Perceived knee pain, muscle pain and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were assessed using Borg's (1998) RPE and pain scales during training. Knee pain was also assessed 24 h post-training.

RESULTS

There were no adverse events. Knee pain was lower with BFR-RT during (p < 0.05) and at 24 h post-training (p < 0.05) with BFR-RT for all sessions. Muscle pain was higher (p < 0.05) with BFR-RT compared to HL-RT during all sessions. RPE remained unchanged (p > 0.05) for both BFR-RT and HL-RT.

CONCLUSION

ACLR patients experienced less knee joint pain and reported similar ratings of perceived exertion during and following leg press exercise with BFR-RT compared to traditional HL-RT. BFR-RT may be more advantageous during the early phases of post-surgery ACLR rehabilitation.