Blood flow restriction resistance training in a recreationally active person with Parkinson's disease

The effects of low-intensity resistance training with blood flow restriction versus traditional resistance exercise on lower extremity muscle strength and motor functionin ischemic stroke survivors: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Blood flow restriction (BFR) training can temporarily reduce cortical GABA concentrations and increase the size of motor volleys to deafferented muscles, which can promote motor recovery in stroke survivors.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of low-intensity resistance training with BFR (LIRT-BFR) on lower extremity muscle strength, balance, functional mobility, walking capacity, gait speed, anxiety, and depression in stroke survivors and to compare the results with high-intensity resistance training (HIRT).

METHOD

It was a two-arm, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial in which 32 ischemic stroke participants were randomly allocated to LIRT-BFR or HIRT group. The LIRT-BFR group received low load resistance training (40% of 1-Repetition Maximum (1-RM)) with BFR, whereas HIRT group   received high load resistance training (80% of 1-RM). The 6-Minute Walk Test (6-MWT), five-time sit-to-stand test (5TSTST), Timed Up and Go (TUG) test, and Barthel index were the primary outcome measures. The secondary outcome measures included gait speed (m/s), stride length (cm), cadence (steps/min), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression.

RESULTS

All the primary and secondary outcome measures were significantly improved in both groups (p < 0.05). The LIRT-BFR group showed a slightly greater, but non-significant, improvement as compared to the HIRT group in terms of mean change observed in 6-MWT (81 m vs 62 m), 5TSTST (-5.27 vs -4.81), gait speed (0.19 vs 0.12), stride length (18 vs 13), and cadence (8 vs 6). No adverse event was reported.

CONCLUSION

LIRT-BFR produced a significant improvement in muscle strength, balance, walking capacity, and anxiety and depression in ischemic stroke patients, and the improvement are comparable to HIRT.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05281679.

Current Implementation and Barriers to Using Blood Flow Restriction Training: Insights From a Survey of Allied Health Practitioners

ABSTRACT

Scott, BR, Marston, KJ, Owens, J, Rolnick, N, and Patterson, SD. Current implementation and barriers to using blood flow restriction training: Insights from a survey of allied health practitioners. J Strength Cond Res 38(3): 481-490, 2024-This study investigated the use of blood flow restriction (BFR) exercise by practitioners working specifically with clinical or older populations, and the barriers preventing some practitioners from prescribing BFR. An online survey was disseminated globally to allied health practitioners, with data from 397 responders included in analyses. Responders who had prescribed BFR exercise ( n = 308) completed questions about how they implement this technique. Those who had not prescribed BFR exercise ( n = 89) provided information on barriers to using this technique, and a subset of these responders ( n = 22) completed a follow-up survey to investigate how these barriers could be alleviated. Most practitioners prescribe BFR exercise for musculoskeletal rehabilitation clients (91.6%), with the BFR cuff pressure typically relative to arterial occlusion pressure (81.1%) and implemented with resistance (96.8%) or aerobic exercise (42.9%). Most practitioners screen for contraindications (68.2%), although minor side effects, including muscle soreness (65.8%), are common. The main barriers preventing some practitioners from using BFR are lack of equipment (60.2%), insufficient education (55.7%), and safety concerns (31.8%). Suggestions to alleviate these barriers included developing educational resources about the safe application and benefits of BFR exercise ( n = 20) that are affordable ( n = 3) and convenient ( n = 4). These results indicate that BFR prescription for clinical and older cohorts mainly conforms with current guidelines, which is important considering the potentially increased risk for adverse events in these cohorts. However, barriers still prevent broader utility of BFR training, although some may be alleviated through well-developed educational offerings to train practitioners in using BFR exercise.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Effects of Blood Flow Restriction Resistance Training on Autonomic and Endothelial Function in Persons with Parkinson's Disease

Background

Autonomic dysfunction precedes endothelial dysfunction in Parkinson's disease (PD) and causes blood pressure and circulation abnormalities that are highly disruptive to one's quality of life. While exercise interventions have proven helpful for motor symptoms of PD, improving associated non-motor symptoms is limited. Low-intensity resistance training with blood flow restriction (LIRT-BFR) improves autonomic dysfunction in non-PD patients and high-intensity resistance training (HIRT) is recommended for motor symptom improvements for people with PD (PwPD).

Objective

To determine the effects of LIRT-BFR and HIRT on homocysteine and autonomic and endothelial function in PwPD and to determine the hemodynamic loads during LIRT-BFR and HIRT in PwPD using a novel exercise protocol.

Methods

Thirty-eight PwPD were assigned LIRT-BFR, HIRT or to a control (CNTRL) group. The LIRT-BFR and HIRT groups exercised three days per week for four weeks. The LIRT-BFR protocol used 60% limb occlusion pressure (LOP) and performed three sets of 20 repetitions at 20% of the one-repetition maximum (1RM). The HIRT group performed three sets of eight repetitions at 80% 1RM. The CNTRL group was asked to continue their normal daily routines.

Results

LIRT-BFR significantly improved orthostatic hypotension (p = 0.026), homocysteine levels (p < 0.001), peripheral circulation (p = 0.003), supine blood pressure (p = 0.028) and heart rate variability (p = 0.041); LIRT-BFR improved homocysteine levels (p < 0.018), peripheral circulation (p = 0.005), supine blood pressure (p = 0.007) and heart rate variability (p = 0.047) more than HIRT; and hemodynamic loads for LIRT-BFR and HIRT were similar.

Conclusions

LIRT-BFR may be more effective than HIRT for autonomic and endothelial function improvements in PwPD and hemodynamic loads may be lessened in LIRT-BFR protocols using single-joint exercises with intermittent blood flow restriction. Further research is needed to determine if non-motor symptoms improve over time and if results are sustainable.

Blood flow restriction as a potential therapy to restore physical function following COVID-19 infection

Accumulating evidence indicates that some COVID-19 survivors display reduced muscle mass, muscle strength, and aerobic capacity, which contribute to impairments in physical function that can persist for months after the acute phase of illness. Accordingly, strategies to restore muscle mass, muscle strength, and aerobic capacity following infection are critical to mitigate the long-term consequences of COVID-19. Blood flow restriction (BFR), which involves the application of mechanical compression to the limbs, presents a promising therapy that could be utilized throughout different phases of COVID-19 illness. Specifically, we hypothesize that: 1) use of passive BFR modalities can mitigate losses of muscle mass and muscle strength that occur during acute infection and 2) exercise with BFR can serve as an effective alternative to high-intensity exercise without BFR for regaining muscle mass, muscle strength, and aerobic capacity during convalescence. The various applications of BFR may also serve as a targeted therapy to address the underlying pathophysiology of COVID-19 and provide benefits to the musculoskeletal system as well as other organ systems affected by the disease. Consequently, we present a theoretical framework with which BFR could be implemented throughout the progression from acute illness to outpatient rehabilitation with the goal of improving short- and long-term outcomes in COVID-19 survivors. We envision that this paper will encourage discussion and consideration among researchers and clinicians of the potential therapeutic benefits of BFR to treat not only COVID-19 but similar pathologies and cases of acute critical illness.

Effects of 4-Week Low-Load Resistance Training with Blood Flow Restriction on Muscle Strength and Left Ventricular Function in Young Swimmers: A Pilot Randomized Trial

Low-load resistance training combined with blood flow restriction (BFR) is known to result in muscle hypertrophy and strength similar to that observed with higher loads. However, the effects of resistance training with BFR on cardiac structure and cardiac function remain largely unknown. Therefore, the purpose of this randomized study was to compare the effects of conventional high-load resistance training (HL-RT) with the effects of low-load resistance training with BFR (LL-BFR) on muscle strength and left ventricular function. Sixteen young swimmers (mean ± standard deviation: age = 19.7 ± 1.6 years, body mass = 78.9 ± 9.7 kg, body height = 180.8 ± 5.8 cm) were randomly allocated to a conventional HL-RT group (n = 8) or a LL-BFR group (n = 8) with a pressure band (200 mmHg) placed on both thighs of participants for 4 weeks (3 days•week-1). Outcome measures were taken at baseline and after 4 weeks of training, and included body composition, one-repetition maximum (1RM) back squat, and echocardiography measures. The 1RM back squat significantly improved (partial eta squared (Ƞ2) = 0.365; p = 0.013) in HL-RT (mean difference (Δ) = 6.6 kg; [95% confidence interval (CI) -7.09 to 20.27]) and LL-BFR groups (Δ = 14.7 kg; [95% CI 3.39 to 26.10]), with no main effect of group or group × time interaction (p > 0.05). Interventricular septum end-systolic thickness showed a slight but statistically significant increase in LL-BFR and HL-RT groups (Ƞ2 = 0.253; p = 0.047), yet there was no main effect of group or group × time interaction (p > 0.05). There were no statistically significant changes (p > 0.05) in other cardiac structure or function parameters (e.g., left ventricular (LV) mass, LV cardiac output, LV ejection fraction, LV stroke volume) after the training programs. Results suggest that 4 weeks of HL-RT and LL-BFR improve muscle strength similarly with limited effects on left ventricular function in young swimmers.

Application and progress of blood flow restriction training in improving muscle mass and strength in the elderly

As an emerging training method, blood flow restriction training has been proved to promote the growth of muscle mass and strength. In recent years, it has been gradually applied in different populations. However, there are few studies on how blood flow restriction training affects muscle mass and strength in the elderly. The relevant literature is compiled and summarized in this study. Through the comparison of blood flow restriction training with traditional training methods and its application in the elderly, it shows that blood flow restriction training can effectively increase muscle mass and strength, prevent muscle atrophy, improve cardiopulmonary function, facilitate injury and postoperative rehabilitation, and intervene in related degenerative diseases as a training method suitable for the elderly,. The main mechanism of blood flow restriction training promoting muscle mass and strength growth is metabolic stress response, including muscle fiber recruitment, protein synthesis signal pathway activation, hormone secretion, etc., and is also related to cell swelling caused by pressure. At present, although the application of blood flow restriction training in the elderly population is increasing, there is a lack of personalized programs. In the future, more research on the dose effect and safety of blood flow restriction training is needed to develop more accurate personalized training programs.

Effectiveness of Blood Flow Restriction in Neurological Disorders: A Systematic Review

There is scientific evidence that Blood Flow Restriction (BFR) is beneficial in healthy people, the elderly and patients with musculoskeletal disorders. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of BFR in patients with neurological disorders. The literature search was conducted up until July 2022 in the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science (WOS), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), LILACS, Scopus, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Literature Complete (CINAHL), the Cochrane Library and Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO). The PEDro scale was used to analyze the methodological quality of the studies, and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool was employed to evaluate the risk of bias. A total of seven articles were included. BFR seems to be beneficial in neurological disorders. Improvements have been found in sensorimotor function, frequency and step length symmetry, perceived exertion, heart rate and gait speed, walking endurance, fatigue, quality of life, muscles thickness, gluteus density and muscle edema. No improvements were found in lower limb strength or balance. However, results must be taken with caution due to the small number of articles and to the large heterogeneity. More clinical trials are needed. These studies should homogenize the protocols used in larger samples, as well as improve their methodological quality.

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 Training for a Person With Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis: A Case Report

OBJECTIVE

Blood flow restriction (BFR) training, in which an inflatable cuff partially occludes blood flow around the proximal portion of a limb, coupled with low-intensity resistance training (LIRT) has resulted in gains comparable with traditional progressive resistive exercise in healthy populations. The use of BFR with LIRT may enable people with multiple sclerosis (MS) to improve strength without an increase in fatigue. The purpose of this case report is to describe the use of a BFR/LIRT program for a person with MS.

METHODS

The patient was a 54-year-old woman with a 13-year history of primary progressive MS with an Extended Disability Severity Score of 3.0 out of 10. She received a BFR/LIRT program for both lower extremities biweekly for 12 weeks. Outcomes measured at baseline and at 6 and 12 weeks included the 12-item Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale (MSWS-12), Fatigue Severity Scale, Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) (goals: running for exercise and pleasure for 45 minutes, 100% confidence in negotiating a flight of stairs, confidently and safely drive without restriction), and 14 lower extremity strength tests.

RESULTS

The intervention was well tolerated without adverse events. After 6 weeks, the MSWS-12 score improved; however, it did not exceed minimum detectable change (MDC). Fatigue Severity Scale was unchanged. All PSFS goals improved beyond MDC, and improvements in strength exceeded MDC in 2 out of 14 tests. After 12 weeks, MSWS-12 improvements persisted and the Fatigue Severity Scale score improved, but neither exceeded MDC. The PSFS improvements persisted. There were improvements exceeding MDC for 8 out of 14 strength tests. The remaining 6 strength tests improved but did not exceed MDC.

CONCLUSION

The patient had measurable improvements following the use of a BFR/LIRT program. BFR/LIRT may be an option for strength training in people with MS; however, research is needed to determine its safety and effectiveness across the population of people with MS.

IMPACT

Traditional physical therapist interventions for people with MS have been shown to be beneficial; however, their usefulness has been limited by fatigue. A growing body of literature has demonstrated the effects of a BFR/LIRT program on strength and other measures of physical function in healthy populations and those with chronic disease. This case report adds missing information to the existing literature and suggests directions for research on the effectiveness of BFR/LIRT in people with primary progressive MS.

LAY SUMMARY

Blood flow restriction, which has been used to help improve strength in healthy adults and in some people with chronic disease, applies pressure around the arm or leg to limit the flow of blood to that body part during exercise, helping to reduce fatigue. Blood flow restriction coupled with low-intensity strengthening exercises can be used for a person with MS.

Lower Limb Resistance Training in Individuals With Parkinson's Disease: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective: Initial randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and recently released systematic reviews have identified resistance training (RT) as a modality to manage motor symptoms and improve physical functioning in individuals with Parkinson's disease (PD), although the effects are inconsistent. Therefore, we conducted an updated meta-analysis to reassess the evidence of the relationship.

Methods: We performed a systematic search of studies reporting the effects of RT in PD available through major electronic databases (PubMed, Medline, Embase, Ovid, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang) through 20 July 2020. Eligible RCTs were screened based on established inclusion criteria. We extracted data on the indicators of leg strength, balance, gait capacity, and quality of life (QoL) of lower limbs. Random and fixed effects models were used for the analysis of standard mean differences (SMD) or mean differences (MD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results: Thirty-one papers from 25 independent trials compromising 1,239 subjects were selected for eligibility in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Summarized data indicated that the leg strength increased statistically significant in PD patients (SMD = 0.79, 95% CI 0.3, 1.27, P = 0.001), the balance capability was improved statistically significant in PD patients (SMD = 0.34, 95% CI 0.01, 0.66, P = 0.04), and QoL statistically significantly improved (MD = −7.22, 95% CI −12.05, −2.39, P = 0.003). For gait performance, four indicators were measured, the results as follows: fast gait velocity (MD = 0.14, 95% CI 0.06, 0.23, P = 0.001), Timed-up-and-go-test (TUG, MD = −1.17, 95% CI −2.27, −0.08, P = 0.04) and Freezing of Gait Questionnaire (FOG-Q, MD = −1.74, 95% CI −3.18, −0.3, P = 0.02) were improved statistically significant across trials, while there were no statistically significant improvement in stride length (MD = −0.05, 95% CI −0.12, 0.02, P = 0.15) in PD patients.

Conclusions: Lower limb RT has positive effects during rehabilitation in individuals with PD in leg strength, QoL, and improve gait performance to a certain extent. RT also could improve balance capacity of patients, although a wide variety of tools were used, and further study is needed to confirm these findings.