Exercise-induced hypoalgesia and pain reduction following blood flow restriction: A brief review

Muscle activity and hypoalgesia in blood flow restricted versus unrestricted effort-matched resistance exercise in healthy adults

This study assessed muscle activity (root mean square, RMS, and median frequency, MDF) to evaluate the acute response to blood flow restriction (BFR) resistance exercise (RE) and conventional moderate intensity (MI) RE. We also performed exploratory analyses of differences based on sex and exercise-induced hypoalgesia (EIH). Fourteen asymptomatic individuals performed four sets of unilateral leg press with their dominant leg to volitional fatigue under two exercise conditions: BFR RE and MI RE. Dominant side rectus femoris (RF) and vastus lateralis (VL) muscle activity were measured using surface electromyography (sEMG) through exercise. RMS and MDF were calculated and compared between conditions and timepoints using a linear mixed model. Pressure pain thresholds (PPT) were tested before and immediately after exercise and used to quantify EIH. Participants were then divided into EIH responders and nonresponders, and the differences on RMS and MDF were compared between the two groups using Hedges' g. RMS significantly increased over time (RF: p = 0.0039; VL: p = 0.001) but not between conditions (RF: p = 0.4; VL: p = 0.67). MDF decreased over time (RF: p = 0.042; VL: p < 0.001) but not between conditions (RF: p = 0.74; VL: p = 0.77). Consistently lower muscle activation was found in females compared with males (BRF, RF: g = 0.63; VL, g = 0.5. MI, RF: g = 0.72; VL: g = 1.56), with more heterogeneous findings in MDF changes. For BFR, EIH responders showed greater RMS changes (Δ RMS) (RF: g = 0.90; VL: g = 1.21) but similar MDF changes (Δ MDF) (RF: g = 0.45; VL: g = 0.28) compared to nonresponders. For MI, EIH responders demonstrated greater increase on Δ RMS (g = 0.61) and decrease on Δ MDF (g = 0.68) in RF but similar changes in VL (Δ RMS: g = 0.40; Δ MDF: g = 0.39). These results indicate that when exercising to fatigue, no statistically significant difference was observed between BFR RE and conventional MI RE in Δ RMS and Δ MDF. Lower muscle activity was noticed in females. While exercising to volitional fatigue, muscle activity may contribute to EIH.

Lowering blood pressure by exercise: investigating the effect of sweating

High blood pressure (hypertension), is a common medical condition, affecting millions of people and is associated with significant health risks. Exercise has been suggested to manage hypertension by inducing sweating and the corresponding loss of sodium and water from the body.Thus, a variety of epidemiological and clinical studies have been conducted to investigate the relationship between sweating and exercise-induced blood pressure reduction and its impacts on hypertension. The mechanisms underlying exercise-induced blood pressure reduction are complex and still not fully understood. However, several pathways have been suggested, including the loss of sodium and water through sweat, a decrease in peripheral resistance, and an improvement in endothelial function in the blood vessels. The decrease in sodium and water content in the body associated with sweating may result in a reduction in blood volume and thus a decrease in blood pressure. Moreover, the reduction in peripheral resistance is thought to be mediated by the activation of the nitric oxide synthase pathway and the release of vasodilators such as prostacyclin and bradykinin, which lead to vasodilation and, thus, a reduction in blood pressure. In conclusion, exercise-induced sweating and consequent sodium and water loss appear to be a reliable biological link to the blood pressure-reducing effects of exercise in hypertensive individuals. Additionally, the mechanisms underlying exercise-induced blood pressure reduction are complex and involve several biological pathways in the cardiovascular system. Therefore, understanding the role of sweat production in blood pressure management is important for developing effective exercise interventions to prevent and manage hypertension.

Acute hypoalgesic, neurophysiological and perceptual responses to low-load blood flow restriction exercise and high-load resistance exercise

This study compared the acute hypoalgesic and neurophysiological responses to low-load resistance exercise with and without blood flow restriction (BFR), and free-flow, high-load exercise. Participants performed four experimental conditions where they completed baseline measures of pain pressure threshold (PPT), maximum voluntary force (MVF) with peripheral nerve stimulation to determine central and peripheral fatigue. Corticospinal excitability (CSE), corticospinal inhibition and short interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) were estimated with transcranial magnetic stimulation. Participants then performed low-load leg press exercise at 30% of one-repetition maximum (LL); low-load leg press with BFR at 40% (BFR40) or 80% (BFR80) of limb occlusion pressure; or high-load leg press of four sets of 10 repetitions at 70% one-repetition maximum (HL). Measurements were repeated at 5, 45 min and 24 h post-exercise. There were no differences in CSE or SICI between conditions (all P > 0.05); however, corticospinal inhibition was reduced to a greater extent (11%-14%) in all low-load conditions compared to HL (P < 0.005). PPTs were 12%-16% greater at 5 min post-exercise in BFR40, BFR80 and HL compared to LL (P ≤ 0.016). Neuromuscular fatigue displayed no clear difference in the magnitude or time course between conditions (all P > 0.05). In summary, low-load BFR resistance exercise does not induce different acute neurophysiological responses to low-load, free-flow exercise but it does promote a greater degree of hypoalgesia and reduces corticospinal inhibition more than high-load exercise, making it a useful rehabilitation tool. The changes in neurophysiology following exercise were not related to changes in PPT.

Hypoalgesia after aerobic exercise in healthy subjects: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Exercise-Induced Hypoalgesia (EIH) refers to an acute reduced pain perception after exercise. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the effect of a single aerobic exercise session on local and remote EIH in healthy individuals, examining the role of exercise duration, intensity, and modality. Pressure pain thresholds (PPT) are used as the main measure, applying the Cochrane risk of bias tool and GRADE approach for certainty of evidence assessment. Mean differences (MD; Newton/cm²) for EIH effects were analysed. Thirteen studies with 23 exercises and 14 control interventions are included (498 participants). Most studies used bicycling, with only two including running/walking and one including rowing. EIH occurred both locally (MD = 3.1) and remotely (MD = 1.8), with high-intensity exercise having the largest effect (local: MD = 7.5; remote: MD = 3.0) followed by moderate intensity (local: MD = 3.1; remote: MD = 3.0). Low-intensity exercise had minimal impact. Neither long nor short exercise duration induced EIH. Bicycling was found to be effective in eliciting EIH, in contrast to the limited research observed in other modalities. The overall evidence quality was moderate with many studies showing unclear risk biases.

The combined effectiveness of therapeutic ultrasound, electrical stimulations, and blood flow restriction to treat symptoms of muscle damage

This study assessed whether symptoms of muscle damage could be reduced by a combination of therapeutic ultrasound and electrical stimulations, and whether this could be enhanced by blood flow restriction. Before and 48 h after performing eccentric elbow flexion exercises, individuals completed assessments of muscle damage. A 10-min therapeutic ultrasound and electrical stimulation treatment was then applied with and without blood flow restriction to assess short (5 min) and long-term (24 h) improvements. Twenty-three individuals completed the study (11 females). Data were analysed using Bayesian repeated measures ANOVAs. The damaging exercise increased discomfort (BF10 = 2.93e14) and relaxed joint angle (BF10 = 2425.90) while decreasing pain pressure threshold (BF10 = 289.71). Each of these variables was acutely improved with the combination treatment protocol (all BF10 ≥ 74) with no added effect of blood flow restriction. A combination of therapeutic ultrasound and interferential electrical stimulations appeared effective at acutely alleviating symptoms of muscle damage with no additive effect of blood flow restriction.

Blood Flow Restriction Training in Patients With Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy: A Randomized, Assessor-Blinded, Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effects of low-load blood flow restriction (BFR) training on shoulder muscle thickness, rotator cuff (RC) strength, and shoulder symptoms in patients with RC tendinopathy.

DESIGN

A randomized, assessor-blinded, controlled trial.

SETTINGS

Physiotherapy clinic at a university.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-eight patients were randomized into an 8-week (2 times/week) shoulder rehabilitation, that is, BFR or non-BFR group.

INTERVENTIONS

BFR training.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

(1) RC, deltoid, scapula retractor, and biceps muscle thicknesses and shoulder internal rotation (IR) and external rotation (ER) strengths. (2) Shoulder pain/function.

RESULTS

The BFR group had a greater increase in biceps muscle thickness ( P = 0.002) and shoulder IR strength at 60 degrees/s ( P = 0.040) than the non-BFR group. No differences between the 2 groups were observed in other measurements. Significant improvements in supraspinatus, infraspinatus, and scapula retractor muscle thicknesses and in shoulder ER and IR strengths were observed over time in both the groups (all P < 0 .05). Also, shoulder pain decreased and shoulder function increased over time in both the groups (all P < 0 .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Low-load BFR training resulted in a greater increase in biceps thickness and shoulder IR strength compared with the non-BFR group in patients with RC tendinopathy. However, there was no superiority of either exercise training regarding the RC, scapula retractor, deltoid muscle thicknesses, or improvements in shoulder ER strength and shoulder pain/function.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER

The study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov named Blood Flow Restriction Training in Patients with Shoulder Pain and the registration number is NCT04333784.

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.

Blood Flow Restricted Electrical Stimulations to Prevent or Attenuate Symptoms of Muscle Damage

The objective of this study was to determine if performing electrical stimulations (E-STIM) under blood flow restriction (BFR) would result in a greater protective effect against symptoms of muscle damage. 18 individuals (9 females) completed a damaging bout of exercise followed by a low frequency E-STIM treatment protocol on both arms, one of which was completed under BFR. The treatment protocol was then repeated 24-hours post-exercise. There were main effects of time for muscle thickness (pre: 3.5 cm; 48 h post: 3.8 cm; BF10 = 88.476), discomfort (pre: 0.0 au; 48 h post: 4.2 au; BF10 = 241.996), and isometric strength (pre: 278 N; 48 h post: 232 N; BF10 = 10,289.894) which all changed as a result of the damaging exercise protocol, but there were no differences between conditions [all Bayes Factors (BF10) < 0.28]. The effectiveness of low frequency E-STIM for preventing the onset of exercise-induced muscle damage would not appear to be enhanced if performed under BFR.

Feasibility of Low-Load Resistance Training Using Blood Flow Restriction for People With Advanced Multiple Sclerosis: A Prospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the feasibility of low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction (BFR) for people with advanced disability due to multiple sclerosis (MS).

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study, 14 participants with MS (Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] score = 6.0 to 7.0; mean age = 55.4 [SD = 6.2] years; 71% women) were asked to perform 3 lower extremity resistance exercises (leg press, calf press, and hip abduction) bilaterally twice weekly for 8 weeks using BFR. Feasibility criteria were as follows: enrollment of 20 participants, ≥80% retention and adherence, ≥90% satisfaction, and no serious adverse events related to the intervention. Other outcomes included knee extensor, ankle plantar flexor, and hip abductor muscle strength, 30-Second Sit-to-Stand Test, Berg Balance Scale, Timed 25-Foot Walk Test, 12-Item MS Walking Scale, Modified Fatigue Impact Scale, Patient-Specific Functional Scale, and daily step count.

RESULTS

Sixteen participants consented, and 14 completed the intervention, with 93% adherence overall. All participants were satisfied with the intervention. A minor hip muscle strain was the only intervention-related adverse event. There were muscle strength improvements on the more-involved (16%-28%) and less-involved (12%-19%) sides. There were also changes in the 30-Second Sit-to-Stand Test (1.9 repetitions; 95% CI = 1.0 to 2.8), Berg Balance Scale (5.3 points; 95% CI = 3.2 to 7.4), Timed 25-Foot Walk Test (-3.3 seconds; 95% CI = -7.9 to 1.3), Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (-8.8 points; 95% CI = -16.5 to -1.1), 12-Item MS Walking Scale (-3.6 points; 95% CI = -11.5 to 4.4), Patient-Specific Functional Scale (2.9 points; 95% CI = 1.9 to 3.8), and daily step count (333 steps; 95% CI = -191 to 857).

CONCLUSION

Low-load resistance training using BFR in people with MS and EDSS scores of 6.0 to 7.0 appears feasible, and subsequent investigation into its efficacy is warranted.

IMPACT

Although efficacy data are needed, combining BFR with low-load resistance training may be a viable alternative for people who have MS and who do not tolerate conventional moderate- to high-intensity training because of more severe symptoms, such as fatigue and weakness.

LAY SUMMARY

Low-load strength training with BFR was feasible in people who have advanced disability due to MS. Using BFR may provide an alternative for people with MS who do not tolerate higher intensity training due to more severe symptoms, such as fatigue and weakness.

The Hypoalgesic Effect of Low-Load Exercise to Failure Is Not Augmented by Blood Flow Restriction

Purpose: To 1) examine whether blood flow restriction would provide an additional exercise-induced hypoalgesic response at an upper and lower limb when it is incorporated with low-load resistance exercise until failure, and 2) examine if increases in blood pressure and discomfort, with blood flow restricted exercise, would mediate the exercise-induced hypoalgesia over exercise without blood flow restriction. Methods: Forty healthy young participants completed two trials: four sets of unilateral knee extension exercise to failure at 30% of one-repetition maximum, with and without blood flow restriction. Pressure pain thresholds were assessed before (twice) and 5-min post exercise at an upper and lower limb. Blood pressure and discomfort ratings were recorded to examine mediating effects on exercise-induced hypoalgesia with blood flow restricted exercise. Results: Pressure pain threshold increased following both exercise conditions compared to a control, without any differences between exercise conditions at the upper (exercise conditions vs. control: ~0.37 kg/cm2) and lower (exercise conditions vs. control: ~0.60 kg/cm2) limb. The total number of repetitions was lower for exercise with blood flow restriction compared to exercise alone [median difference (95% credible interval) of -27.0 (-29.8, -24.4) repetitions]. There were no mediating effects of changes in blood pressure, nor changes in discomfort, for the changes in pressure pain threshold at either the upper or lower limb. Conclusion: The addition of blood flow restriction to low-load exercise induces a similar hypoalgesic response to that of non-blood flow restricted exercise, with a fewer number of repetitions.

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.

Comparing the effectiveness of tissue flossing applied to ankle joint versus calf muscle on exercise performance in female adults: An observational, randomized crossover trial

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of ankle sprains in females has higher than in males. A deficit in ankle dorsiflexion range of motion (DFROM) is a substantial contributor to ankle injuries, resulting in hampering exercise performance. Tissue flossing improves joint ROM and enhances performance. However, evidence of how floss band (FB) intervention influences the ankle joint and calf muscle is still lacking, particularly in women. We investigated comparing the effectiveness of FB applied to ankle joint versus calf muscle on exercise performance.

METHODS

This study was a randomized, counterbalanced crossover trial. Eighteen recreationally women received functional movements without wrapping FB (WF), movements with wrapping the FB around the ankle joint (FAG), and movements with wrapping the FB around the calf muscle (FCM). Main outcome measures included ankle dorsiflexion range of motion (DFROM), pressure pain threshold (PPT), agility test before and 5 (POST5), 30 (POST30), and 60 (POST60) minutes after each of the three interventions in random order. Two-way repeated measures analysis of variance and effect size (Cohen's d) were statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

FAG significantly increased ankle DFROM at POST5 (p = 0.01, d = 0.5), POST30 (p = 0.03, d = 0.48), and POST60 (p = 0.001, d = 0.75). FCM significantly increased at POST30 (p = 0.01, d = 0.35) and POST60 (p = 0.004, d = 0.37). Furthermore, FAG significantly improved agility at POST5 (p < 0.001, d = 0.39), POST30 (p = 0.004, d = 0.44), and POST60 (p = 0.007, d = 0.45); however, FCM only did at POST5 (p = 0.04, d = 0.29). The pressure pain threshold on the calf muscle did not significantly change.

CONCLUSIONS

FAG and WF enhance ankle ROM and agility immediately. Moreover, FAG demonstrates a prolonged effect of agility for 1 h. Practitioners may take this information into account for choosing efficient applications.

ADAPTations to low load blood flow restriction exercise versus conventional heavier load resistance exercise in UK military personnel with persistent knee pain: protocol for the ADAPT study, a multi-centre randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Muscle atrophy, muscle weakness and localised pain are commonly reported following musculoskeletal injury (MSKI). To mitigate this risk and prepare individuals to return to sport or physically demanding occupations, resistance training (RT) is considered a vital component of rehabilitation. However, to elicit adaptations in muscle strength, exercise guidelines recommend lifting loads ≥ 70% of an individual's one repetition maximum (1-RM). Unfortunately, individuals with persistent knee pain are often unable to tolerate such high loads and this may negatively impact the duration and extent of their recovery. Low load blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) is an alternative RT technique that has demonstrated improvements in muscle strength, hypertrophy, and pain in the absence of high mechanical loading. However, the effectiveness of high-frequency LL-BFR in a residential rehabilitation environment remains unclear. This study will compare the efficacy of high frequency LL-BFR to 'conventional' heavier load resistance training (HL-RT) on measures of physical function and pain in adults with persistent knee pain.

METHODS

This is a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) of 150 UK service personnel (aged 18-55) admitted for a 3-week residential rehabilitation course with persistent knee pain. Participants will be randomised to receive: a) LL-BFR delivered twice daily at 20% 1-RM or b) HL-RT three-times per week at 70% 1-RM. Outcomes will be recorded at baseline (T1), course discharge (T2) and at three-months following course (T3). The primary outcome will be the lower extremity functional scale (LEFS) at T2. Secondary outcomes will include patient reported perceptions of pain, physical and occupational function and objective measures of muscle strength and neuromuscular performance. Additional biomechanical and physiological mechanisms underpinning both RT interventions will also be investigated as part of a nested mechanistic study.

DISCUSSION

LL-BFR is a rehabilitation modality that has the potential to induce positive clinical adaptations in the absence of high mechanical loads and therefore could be considered a treatment option for patients suffering significant functional deficits who are unable to tolerate heavy load RT. Consequently, results from this study will have a direct clinical application to healthcare service providers and patients involved in the rehabilitation of physically active adults suffering MSKI.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.org reference number, NCT05719922.

[Blood flow restriction training as a treatment option for lateral elbow tendinopathy-a study presentation]

Blood flow restriction training, developed in 1966 in Japan, is a training modality that utilizes partial arterial and complete venous blood flow occlusion. Combined with low load resistance training, it aims to induce hypertrophy and strength gains. This makes it particularly suitable for people recovering from injury or surgery, for whom the use of high training loads is unfeasible. In this article, the mechanism behind blood flow restriction training and its applicability for the treatment of lateral elbow tendinopathy is explained. An ongoing prospective, randomized, controlled trial on the treatment of lateral elbow tendinopathy is presented.

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.

The impact of blood flow restricted electrical stimulations on recovery from muscle damage

BACKGROUND

Both electrical stimulations (E-STIM) and blood flow restriction (BFR) have been shown to treat symptoms of exercise-induced muscle damage, but little is known about their combined effects which was the purpose of this study.

METHODS

Individuals completed one set of eccentric elbow flexion exercises to induce muscle damage. Forty-eight hours later, E-STIM was applied using an interferential current administered to both arms for 20 min; however, only one arm completed the E-STIM protocol while also undergoing repeated bouts of BFR (full occlusion for 2 min separated by a 1-min rest intervals). Discomfort and isometric strength were assessed immediately before the damaging exercise, immediately before the treatments, and 0, 10, and 30 min posttreatment.

RESULTS

A total of 22 individuals (11 females) completed the study. There were no interactions with respect to discomfort (BF₁₀  = 0.008) or isometric strength (BF₁₀  = 0.009) indicating that the addition of BFR did not alter the effectiveness of E-STIM. There was a main effect of time indicating that the damaging exercise was successful at depressing torque (pre: 284 N, post: 199 N; BF₁₀  = 2.70e9) and inducing discomfort (pre: 0 au, post: 6.4 au; BF₁₀  = 3.21e17). While isometric strength did not recover with the E-STIM treatments, discomfort was reduced at each the immediate post (5.3 au; BF₁₀  = 56 294) 10-min post (5.0 au; BF₁₀  = 46 163), and 30-min post (4.9 au; BF₁₀  = 707 600) time points.

CONCLUSION

E-STIM may be useful for treating discomfort, but does not appear capable of recovering strength associated with muscle damage. The efficacy of E-STIM would not appear to be enhanced if performed under BFR.

Wrist Extensor Training With Blood Flow Restriction for the Management of Lateral Elbow Tendinopathy: A Case Report

Lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET) is a common overuse injury with complex underlying pathophysiological mechanisms. Although several modes of exercise with or without passive interventions have been recommended as the first-line treatment option of the condition, their effectiveness remains inconclusive. The aim of this case report is to evaluate the effect of wrist extensor exercises with blood flow restriction (BFR) as an add-on intervention to a multi-modal physiotherapy programme to improve outcomes in a patient with LET. A 51-year-old male patient presented with a history of right LET for six months. Interventions included wrist extension exercise with BFR, a two-stage progressive loading training programme of the upper limb, soft-tissue massage, education and a home exercise programme for six weeks (12 visits). A substantial improvement in pain intensity, pain-free grip strength, Patient Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation score and self-perceived recovery was reported at three-, six-, and 12-week follow-up measurements. A 21% reduction in pressure pain thresholds at the lateral epicondyle was found immediately after wrist extensor exercise with BFR. Based on our findings, adding wrist extensor exercises with BFR to a multimodal physiotherapy programme seems a promising approach to improve the treatment outcome in LET. Nonetheless, further research is needed to confirm the present results.

The effectiveness and safety of blood flow restriction training for the post-operation treatment of distal radius fracture

INTRODUCTION

Distal radius fracture (DRF) is a common injury in the upper extremities. Blood flow restriction (BFR) has been proven to be effective in improving function in low-load training, which is suitable for post-op rehabilitation. We explored the effectiveness and safety of BFR therapy in DRF patients who underwent surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-five patients were randomly assigned to either the BFR or the regular training (RT; no BFR therapy) groups. All patients completed the same 4-week postoperative rehabilitation program, including anti-inflammatory treatments, strengthening and range of motion (ROM) training. In the BFR group, the pressure was 120 mmHg in strengthening training course. Pain, circumferences of wrists and forearms, ROM, muscle strength, and D-dimer levels were evaluated at weeks 0, 2, and 4. Radius union scoring system (RUSS) was measured at weeks 4 and 12. Finally, wrist functionality (Cooney modification) was evaluated at week 12.

RESULTS

The BFR group had significantly decreased pain levels compared with the RT group (p < 0.01, effect size= 2.33, -2.44 at weeks 2 and 4). Swelling was effectively relieved in both groups. The wrist swelling was less in the BFR group (p < 0.01, effect size = -2.17 at week 4). The isometric strength of wrist extension (p < 0.01, effect size = 1.5, 3.02 at weeks 2 and 4), flexion (p < 0.01, effect size = 1.33, 2.53 at weeks 2 and 4), and functionality significantly increased in the BFR group (p < 0.01, effect size = 2.80 at week 12). No risk of VT in the BFR group was found. BFR did not threaten bone healing.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with DRF who underwent corrective surgery, BFR therapy effectively relieved pain and swelling, increased muscle strength and wrist function, and had no additional risks for bone healing and VT.

Exercised-Induced Hypoalgesia following An Elbow Flexion Low-Load Resistance Exercise with Blood Flow Restriction: A Sham-Controlled Randomized Trial in Healthy Adults

We aimed to evaluate the hypoalgesic effect of an elbow flexion low-load resistance exercise with blood flow restriction (LLRE-BFR) when compared to high-load resistance exercise (HLRE) with sham-BFR in healthy individuals. Forty healthy young adults (17 women), with a mean age ± SD: 26.6 ± 6.8 years, and mean body mass index ± SD: 23.6 ± 2.7 were randomly assigned to either an LLRE-BFR (30% 1 repetition maximum, RM) or an HLRE with sham-BFR group (70% of 1 RM). Blood pressure and pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) were measured pre- and post-exercise intervention. The rating of perceived exertion (RPE) was recorded after each set. There were non-significant between-group changes in PPT at the dominant biceps (-0.61, 95%CI: -1.92 to 0.68) with statistically significant reductions between pre- and post-exercise in LLRE-BFR (effect size, d = 0.88) and HLRE-BFR (effect size, d = 0.52). No within- or between-group differences were recorded in PPT at non-exercising sites of measurement. No mediating effects of changes in blood pressure or RPE on the changes in pressure pain threshold were observed. LLRE-BFR produced a similar hypoalgesic effect locally compared to HLRE and can be used as an alternative intervention to decrease pain sensitivity when HLRE is contraindicated or should be avoided.

Low-Load Resistance Training With Blood Flow Restriction Is Effective for Managing Lateral Elbow Tendinopathy: A Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction (LLRT-BFR) when compared to LLRT with sham-BFR in patients with lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET). DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Forty-six patients with LET were randomly assigned to a LLRT-BFR or a LLRT with sham-BFR treatment group. All patients received soft tissue massage, supervised exercises with BFR or sham intervention (twice a week for 6 weeks), advice, and a home exercise program. The primary outcome measures were pain intensity, patient-rated tennis elbow evaluation (PRTEE) score, pain-free grip strength, and global rating of change, measured at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks. Between-group differences were evaluated using mixed-effects models with participant-specific random effects for continuous data. Global rating of change was analyzed using logistic regression. RESULTS: Statistically significant between-group differences were found in favor of LLRT-BFR compared to LLRT with sham-BFR in pain intensity at 12-week follow-up (-1.54, 95% CI: -2.89 to -0.18; P = .026), pain-free grip strength ratio at 6-week follow-up (0.20, 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.34; P = .005), and PRTEE at 6- and 12-week follow-up (-11.92, 95% CI: -20.26 to -3.59; P = .006, and -15.23, 95% CI: -23.57 to -6.9; P<.001, respectively). At 6- and 12-weeks, patients in the LLRT-BFR group had greater odds of reporting complete recovery or significant improvement (OR = 6.0, OR = 4.09, respectively). CONCLUSION: Low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction produced significantly better results compared to the LLRT with sham-BFR for all primary outcomes. Considering the clinically significant between-group improvement in function (>11 points in PRTEE) and the better success rates in the LLRT-BFR group, this intervention may improve recovery in LET. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(12):803-825. Epub: 14 September 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.11211.

Clinical use of blood flow restriction in people with neurologic conditions: a cross-sectional survey

[Purpose] There is little evidence for blood flow restriction (BFR), or Kaatsu, training in people with neurologic conditions. This study's purpose was to survey clinicians on BFR use in people with neurologic conditions. [Participants and Methods] One-hundred twelve physical therapists and other healthcare professionals who reported using BFR in the past 5 years completed an anonymous, online survey. [Results] Eighty-nine percent of respondents thought BFR was safe in people with neurologic conditions. Meanwhile, 38% reported BFR use in people with neurologic conditions. The most common intervention used with BFR was resistance training (n=33) and the most commonly reported benefit was improved strength (n=27). The most common side-effect causing treatment to stop was intolerance to pressure (n=6). No side-effects requiring medical attention were reported. In order to support future BFR use in neurologic populations, the most common response was the need for more research (n=63). [Conclusion] Despite the lack of evidence, clinical use of BFR in people with neurologic conditions may be somewhat common. Although this study had a relatively small sample size and collected data retrospectively, the results support the potential clinical feasibility and safety of BFR use in patients with neurologic conditions and suggest that more research is needed.

Blood Flow Restriction Enhances Rehabilitation and Return to Sport: The Paradox of Proximal Performance

The use of blood flow restriction (BFR) within rehabilitation is rapidly increasing as further research is performed elucidating purported benefits such as improved muscular strength and size, neuromuscular control, decreased pain, and increased bone mineral density. Interestingly, these benefits are not isolated to structures distal to the occlusive stimulus. Proximal gains are of high interest to rehabilitation professionals, especially those working with patients who are limited due to pain or postsurgical precautions. The review to follow will focus on current evidence and ongoing hypotheses regarding physiologic responses to BFR, current clinical applications, proximal responses to BFR training, potential practical applications for rehabilitation and injury prevention, and directions for future research. Interestingly, benefits have been found in musculature proximal to the occlusive stimulus, which may lend promise to a greater variety of patient populations and conditions. Furthermore, an increasing demand for BFR use in the sports world warrants further research for performance research and recovery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V, expert opinion.

Blood Flow Restriction Therapy and Its Use for Rehabilitation and Return to Sport: Physiology, Application, and Guidelines for Implementation

Blood flow restriction (BFR) is an expanding rehabilitation modality that uses a tourniquet to reduce arterial inflow and occlude venous outflow in the setting of resistance training or exercise. Initially, this technique was seen as a way to stimulate muscular development, but improved understanding of its physiologic benefits and mechanism of action has allowed for innovative clinical applications. BFR represents a way to decrease stress placed on the joints without compromising improvements in strength, whereas for postoperative, injured, or load-compromised individuals BFR represents a way to accelerate recovery and prevent atrophy. There is also growing evidence to suggest that it augments cardiovascular fitness and attenuates pain. The purpose of this review is to highlight the physiology and evidence behind the various applications of BFR, with a focus on postoperative rehabilitation. While much remains to be learned, it is clear that blood flow restriction therapy stimulates muscle hypertrophy via a synergistic response to metabolic stress and mechanical tension, with supplemental benefits on cardiovascular fitness and pain. New forms of BFR and expanding applications in postoperative patients and athletes hold promise for expedited recovery. Continued adherence to rehabilitation guidelines and exploration of BFRs physiology and various applications will help optimize its effect and prescription.

Level of Evidence

V, expert opinion.

Aerobic exercise with blood flow restriction causes local and systemic hypoalgesia and increases circulating opioid and endocannabinoid levels

This study examined the effect of aerobic exercise with and without blood flow restriction (BFR) on exercise-induced hypoalgesia and endogenous opioid and endocannabinoid systems. In a randomized crossover design, pain-free individuals performed 20 min of cycling in four experimental trials: 1) low-intensity aerobic exercise (LI-AE) at 40% V̇o_2max; 2) LI-AE with low-pressure BFR (BFR40); 3) LI-AE with high-pressure BFR (BFR80); and 4) high-intensity aerobic exercise (HI-AE) at 70% V̇o_2max. Pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) were assessed before and 5 min postexercise. Circulating concentrations of beta-endorphin and 2-arachidonoylglycerol were assessed before and 10 min postexercise. In the exercising legs, postexercise PPTs were increased following BFR40 and BFR80 compared with LI-AE (23-32% vs. 1-2% increase, respectively). The increase in PPTs was comparable to HI-AE (17-20% increase) with BFR40 and greater with BFR80 (30-32% increase). Both BFR80 and HI-AE increased PPTs in remote areas of the body (increase of 26-28% vs. 19-21%, respectively). Postexercise circulating beta-endorphin concentration was increased following BFR40 (11%) and HI-AE (14%), with the greatest change observed following BFR80 (29%). Postexercise circulating 2-arachidonoylglycerol concentration was increased following BFR40 (22%) and BFR80 (20%), with the greatest change observed following HI-AE (57%). Addition of BFR to LI-AE can trigger both local and systemic hypoalgesia that is not observed follow LI-AE alone and activate endogenous opioid and endocannabinoid systems of pain inhibition. Compared with HI-AE, local and systemic hypoalgesia following LI-AE with high-pressure BFR is greater and comparable, respectively. LI-AE with BFR may help pain management in load-compromised individuals.NEW & NOTEWORTHY We have shown that performing blood flow restriction (BFR) during low-intensity aerobic exercise can trigger local and systemic hypoalgesia, which is not typically observed with this intensity of exercise. High-pressure BFR triggers greater and comparable hypoalgesia than high-intensity aerobic exercise in the exercising limbs and remote areas of the body, respectively. Performing BFR during low-intensity aerobic exercise activates the opioid and endocannabinoid systems, providing novel insight into potential mechanisms of hypoalgesia with BFR exercise.

Perceived Barriers to Blood Flow Restriction Training

Blood flow restriction (BFR) training is increasing in popularity in the fitness and rehabilitation settings due to its role in optimizing muscle mass and strength as well as cardiovascular capacity, function, and a host of other benefits. However, despite the interest in this area of research, there are likely some perceived barriers that practitioners must overcome to effectively implement this modality into practice. These barriers include determining BFR training pressures, access to appropriate BFR training technologies for relevant demographics based on the current evidence, a comprehensive and systematic approach to medical screening for safe practice and strategies to mitigate excessive perceptual demands of BFR training to foster long-term compliance. This manuscript attempts to discuss each of these barriers and provides evidence-based strategies and direction to guide clinical practice and future research.