Effects of resistance training with blood flow restriction on haemodynamics: a systematic review

The effects of blood flow restriction combined with endurance training on athletes' aerobic capacity, lower limb muscle strength, anaerobic power and sports performance: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of blood flow restriction (BFR) combined with endurance training on aerobic capacity, lower limb muscle strength, anaerobic power, and sports performance to supply effective scientific guidance for training. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We searched PubMed, Medline, Cochrane, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science databases up to 28 October 2024. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We calculated the effect size using standardized mean difference values and the random effects model. The results showed a medium effect size on maximal oxygen uptake (V̇O2max), a large effect size on lower limb muscle strength, a small effect size on anaerobic power and sports performance. In conclusion, while BFR training during endurance training had a significant positive effect on lower limb muscle strength and moderate improvement in V̇O2max, its impact on anaerobic power and sports performance was relatively small. These findings suggest that BFR training may be effective for enhancing muscle strength and aerobic capacity, but its benefits on anaerobic power and sport-specific performance may be limited. Therefore, it is important to carefully design BFR training programs to target specific outcomes.

How can Blood Flow Restriction Exercise be Utilised for the Management of Persistent Pain Following Complex Injuries in Military Personnel? A Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

Persistent pain is a complicated phenomenon associated with a wide array of complex pathologies and conditions (e.g., complex regional pain syndrome, non-freezing cold injury), leading to extensive disability and reduced physical function. Conventional resistance training is commonly contraindicated in load compromised and/or persistent pain populations, compromising rehabilitation progression and potentially leading to extensive pharmacological intervention, invasive procedures, and reduced occupational status. The management of persistent pain and utility of adjunct therapies has become a clinical and research priority within numerous healthcare settings, including defence medical services.

MAIN BODY

Blood flow restriction (BFR) exercise has demonstrated beneficial morphological and physiological adaptions in load-compromised populations, as well as being able to elicit acute hypoalgesia. The aims of this narrative review are to: (1) explore the use of BFR exercise to elicit hypoalgesia; (2) briefly review the mechanisms of BFR-induced hypoalgesia; (3) discuss potential implications and applications of BFR during the rehabilitation of complex conditions where persistent pain is the primary limiting factor to progress, within defence rehabilitation healthcare settings. The review found BFR application is a feasible intervention across numerous load-compromised clinical populations (e.g., post-surgical, post-traumatic osteoarthritis), and there is mechanistic rationale for use in persistent pain pathologies. Utilisation may also be pleiotropic in nature by ameliorating pathological changes while also modulating pain response. Numerous application methods (e.g., with aerobic exercise, passive application, or resistance training) allow practitioners to cater for specific limitations (e.g., passive, or contralateral application with kinesiophobia) in clinical populations. Additionally, the low-mechanical load nature of BFR exercise may allow for high-frequency use within residential military rehabilitation, providing a platform for conventional resistance training thereafter.

CONCLUSION

Future research needs to examine the differences in pain modulation between persistent pain and pain-free populations with BFR application, supporting the investigation of mechanisms for BFR-induced hypoalgesia, the dose-response relationship between BFR-exercise and pain modulation, and the efficacy and effectiveness of BFR application in complex musculoskeletal and persistent pain populations.

Effects of Resistance Exercise with and without Blood Flow Restriction on Acute Hemodynamic Responses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Low-load intensity resistance exercise with blood flow restriction (BFR) is an alternative method for enhancing strength and muscle mass. However, acute cardiovascular responses to a complete training session remain uncertain compared to high-load intensity resistance exercise (HI). Therefore, the objective of this study to examine acute and post-exercise hemodynamic responses to low-load BFR and HI protocols. This systematic review and meta-analysis (RD42022308697) followed PRISMA guidelines to investigate whether the responses of heart rate (HR), blood systolic (SBP), blood diastolic pressure (DBP), and rate pressure product (RPP) immediately after and up to 60 min post-exercise from BFR were consistent with those reported after resistance exercises performed at HI in healthy individuals. Searches using PICO descriptors were conducted in databases from January 2011 to December 2023, and effect sizes were determined by Hedge's g. The selected studies involved 160 participants in nine articles, for which the responses immediately after BFR and HI exercises showed no differences in HR (p = 0.23) or SBP (p = 0.57), but significantly higher DBP (p < 0.01) and lower RPP (p < 0.01) responses were found when comparing BFR to HI. Furthermore, the BFR and HI protocols showed no differences regarding SBP (p = 0.21) or DBP (p = 0.68) responses during a 15 to 60 min post-exercise period. Thus, these results indicated that hemodynamic responses are similar between BFR and HI, with a similar hypotensive effect up to 60 min following exercise.

Remote Ischemic Conditioning in Stroke Recovery

Remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) is a therapeutic strategy to protect a vital organ like the brain from ischemic injury through brief and repeat cycles of ischemia and reperfusion in remote body parts such as arm or leg. RIC has been applied in different aspects of the stroke field and has shown promise. This narrative review will provide an overview of how to implement RIC in stroke patients, summarize the clinical evidence of RIC on stroke recovery, and discuss unresolved questions and future study directions.

The Clinical Effects of Pharmacotherapy Combined with Blood Flow Restriction and Isometric Exercise Training in Rehabilitating Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is associated with reduced cardiac function and impaired quality of life. Blood flow restriction (BFR) training is emerging as a potential adjunctive therapy. This study aimed at evaluating the efficacy of combination of BFR and isometric exercises on cardiac function, functional status, and quality of life in HFrEF patients. Totally 44 patients with HFrEF were equally divided into a control group and a combined treatment group. Both groups received standard pharmacotherapy and upper limb exercise, with the combined group also undergoing BFR and isometric exercise training. We assessed demographic and clinical characteristics, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classification, cardiac function parameters, serum Brain Natriuretic Peptide levels, physical capacity via the 6-minute walking test, and quality of life using the Heart Failure Questionnaire (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire). Post-treatment, the combined group significantly improved in NYHA classification (p = 0.012), with more patients shifting to a better class. Cardiac function improved in both groups, with the combined group showing a greater increase in mean left ventricular ejection fractions (p < 0.001), and reductions in left ventricular end-diastolic and end-systolic diameters (p < 0.05). The addition of BFR training to standard pharmacotherapy with upper limb exercise in HFrEF patients led to significant enhancements in cardiac function, functional status, and quality of life. These findings support the integration of BFR training into conventional HFrEF treatment regimens to maximize patient recovery outcomes.

Acute Intraocular Pressure Responses to Resistance Training in Combination With Blood Flow Restriction

Objective: To determine the effect of blood flow restriction (BFR) applied to the legs at different pressures (40% and 60%) on intraocular pressure (IOP) during the execution of ten repetitions maximum (10RM) in the half-squat exercise. Methods: Quasi-experimental, prospective study with 17 healthy physically active subjects (9 males and 8 females; 24.1 ± 4.2 years). Two sessions were conducted. The 10RM load was determined in the first session. The second session consisted of 10RM under three BFR conditions (no-BFR, 40%-BFR, and 60%-BFR) that were applied in random order. IOP was measured before each condition, immediately after each repetition, and after 1 minute of passive recovery. A two-way repeated-measures ANOVA (restriction type [no-BFR, 40%-BFR, and 60%-BFR] x measurement point [basal, repetitions 1-10, and recovery]) was applied on the IOP measurements. Results: A significant main effect of the BFR condition (p = .022, ƞp2 = 0.21) was observed due to the significantly higher mean IOP values for the 60%-BFR (19.0 ± 0.7 mmHg) compared to the no-BFR (18.0 ± 0.8 mmHg; p = .048, dunb = 1.30). Non-significant differences with a large effect size were reached between 60%-BFR and 40%-BFR (18.1 ± 0.8 mmHg; p = .081, dunb = 1.16) and between no-BFR and 40%-BFR (p = .686, dunb = 0.18). IOP increased approximately 3-4 mmHg from baseline to the last repetition. Conclusions: Low-pressure BFR (40%-BFR) in combination with moderate-load (10RM load) resistance exercise could be an effective and safe strength training strategy while avoiding IOP peaks associated with heavy-load resistance exercises. These findings incorporate novel insights into the most effective exercise strategies in individuals who need to maintain stable IOP levels (e.g., glaucoma patients).

Effects of blood flow restriction training on bone metabolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction: The efficacy of low-intensity blood flow restriction (LI-BFR) training programs in bone metabolism remains unclear compared to low-intensity (LI) training and high-intensity (HI) training. The aim of this review was to quantitatively identify the effects of LI-BFR training on changes in bone formation markers (i.e., bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, BALP), bone resorption (i.e., C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen, CTX) and bone mineral density (BMD) compared with conventional resistance training programmes. Additionally, the effectiveness of walking with and without BFR was assessed. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases were searched for articles based on eligibility criteria. Review Manager Version 5.4 was used for Meta-analysis. Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) was applied to assess the methodological quality of studies. Results: 12 articles were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 378 participants. Meta-results showed that compared with LI training, LI-BFR training induced greater increments in BALP (young adults: MD = 6.70, p < 0.001; old adults: MD = 3.94, p = 0.002), slight increments in BMD (young adults: MD = 0.05, p < 0.00001; old adults: MD = 0.01, p < 0.00001), and greater decrements in CTX (young adults: MD = -0.19, p = 0.15; old adults: MD = -0.07, p = 0.003). Compared with HI training, LI-BFR training produced smaller increments in BALP (young adults: MD = -6.87, p = 0.24; old adults: MD = -0.6, p = 0.58), similar increments in BMD (MD = -0.01, p = 0.76) and similar decrements in CTX (young adults: MD = 0, p = 0.96; old adults: MD = -0.08, p = 0.13). Although there were only two studies on walking training intervention, walking training with BFR had a better effect on bone metabolism than training without BFR. Discussion: In conclusion, LI-BFR training induces greater improvements in bone health than LI training, but is less effective than HI training. Therefore, LI-BFR training may be an effective and efficient way to improve bone health for untrained individuals, older adults, or those undergoing musculoskeletal rehabilitation. Clinical Trial Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42023411837].

Acute cardiovascular responses to unilateral bicep curls with blood flow restriction

A consensus on the acute cardiovascular responses to low intensity (LI) resistance exercise (RE) combined with blood flow restriction (BFR) has not yet been reached. This study was designed to compare acute cardiovascular responses to a single bout of LIRE, high intensity (HI) RE, and LIRE with BFR in physically active young males. Participants completed 3 RE sessions in random order, where each session consists of 4 sets of unilateral dumbbell bicep curls. Cardiovascular hemodynamics were measured at baseline and right after each set of RE. Aortic augmentation index (AIx) was significantly higher after set 2,3,4 of RE in LI + BFR session compared to LI session (P < 0.05). Brachial systolic blood pressure (SBP), heart rate (HR), brachial rate pressure product (RPP), and central RPP responses did not differ between LI and LI + BFR sessions (P > 0.05). HI session had a higher central SBP, brachial RPP, central RPP, and aortic AIx compared to LI session after each set of RE (P < 0.05), but not brachial SBP (P > 0.05). Taken together, this study showed that LIRE combined with BFR acutely augmented aortic stiffness, as also observed in HI session, but myocardial oxygen consumption was only higher in HI session when compared to LI session. Thus, although BFR did not exaggerate cardiovascular responses nor cause extra myocardial oxygen consumption, it should be prescribed with caution when control of acute aortic stiffening is necessary during RE.

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.

Comparative Perceptual, Affective, and Cardiovascular Responses between Resistance Exercise with and without Blood Flow Restriction in Older Adults

Older adults and patients with chronic disease presenting with muscle weakness or musculoskeletal disorders may benefit from low-load resistance exercise (LLRE) with blood flow restriction (BFR). LLRE-BFR has been shown to increase muscle size, strength, and endurance comparable to traditional resistance exercise but without the use of heavy loads. However, potential negative effects from LLRE-BFR present as a barrier to participation and limit its wider use. This study examined the perceptual, affective, and cardiovascular responses to a bout of LLRE-BFR and compared the responses to LLRE and moderate-load resistance exercise (MLRE). Twenty older adults (64.3 ± 4.2 years) performed LLRE-BFR, LLRE and MLRE consisting of 4 sets of leg press and knee extension, in a randomised crossover design. LLRE-BFR was more demanding than LLRE and MLRE through increased pain (p ≤ 0.024, d = 0.8-1.4) and reduced affect (p ≤ 0.048, d = -0.5--0.9). Despite this, LLRE-BFR was enjoyed and promoted a positive affective response (p ≤ 0.035, d = 0.5-0.9) following exercise comparable to MLRE. This study supports the use of LLRE-BFR for older adults and encourages future research to examine the safety, acceptability, and efficacy of LLRE-BFR in patients with chronic disease.

Blood Flow Restriction Therapy: An Evidence-Based Approach to Postoperative Rehabilitation

➢

Blood flow restriction therapy (BFRT) involves the application of a pneumatic tourniquet cuff to the proximal portion of the arm or leg. This restricts arterial blood flow while occluding venous return, which creates a hypoxic environment that induces many physiologic adaptations.

➢

BFRT is especially useful in postoperative rehabilitation because it produces muscular hypertrophy and strength gains without the need for heavy-load exercises that are contraindicated after surgery.

➢

Low-load resistance training with BFRT may be preferable to low-load or high-load training alone because it leads to comparable increases in strength and hypertrophy, without inducing muscular edema or increasing pain.

Sympathetic Nerve Activity and Blood Pressure Response to Exercise in Peripheral Artery Disease: From Molecular Mechanisms, Human Studies, to Intervention Strategy Development

Sympathetic nerve activity (SNA) regulates the contraction of vascular smooth muscle and leads to a change in arterial blood pressure (BP). It was observed that SNA, vascular contractility, and BP are heightened in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) during exercise. The exercise pressor reflex (EPR), a neural mechanism responsible for BP response to activation of muscle afferent nerve, is a determinant of the exaggerated exercise-induced BP rise in PAD. Based on recent results obtained from a series of studies in PAD patients and a rat model of PAD, this review will shed light on SNA-driven BP response and the underlying mechanisms by which receptors and molecular mediators in muscle afferent nerves mediate the abnormalities in autonomic activities of PAD. Intervention strategies, particularly non-pharmacological strategies, improving the deleterious exercise-induced SNA and BP in PAD, and enhancing tolerance and performance during exercise will also be discussed.

Acute effects of resistance exercise with blood flow restriction on cardiovascular response: a meta-analysis

Aim: To compare the acute effects of low-load resistance training associated with blood flow restriction (LLRT-BFR) with low-load resistance training (LLRT) and high-load resistance training (HLRT) on cardiovascular outcomes in healthy individuals. Methods: This review was registered and the studies were selected using seven databases. Randomized controlled clinical trials were included that evaluated LLRT-BFR compared with LLRT and HLRT in young individuals for the cardiovascular outcomes. Results: 19 studies were included. In the comparison of LLRT-BFR with HLRT, there were significant differences for cardiac output and heart rate - with reduced values and in favor of LLRT-BFR. Conclusion: There are no greater acute effects of the addition of blood flow restriction, with the exception of the reduction in cardiac output and heart rate for LLRT-BFR compared with HLRT.

Acute hemodynamic responses from Low- load resistance exercise with blood flow restriction in young and older individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cross-Over Trials

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the existing evidence on the acute response of low-load (LL) resistance exercise (RE) with blood flow restriction (BFR) on hemodynamic parameters.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE (via Scopus), SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, and MedRxiv databases were searched from inception to February 2022.

REVIEW METHODS

Cross-over trials investigating the acute effect of LLRE+BFR vs. passive (no exercise) and active control methods (LLRE or HLRE) on heart rate (HR), systolic (SBP), diastolic (DBP), and mean (MBP) blood pressure responses.

RESULTS

The quality of the studies was assessed using the PEDro scale, risk of bias using the RoB 2.0 tool for cross-over trials, and certainty of the evidence using the GRADE method. A total of 15 randomized cross-over studies with 466 participants were eligible for analyses. Our data showed that LLRE+BFR increases all hemodynamic parameters compared to passive control, but not compared to conventional resistance exercise. Subgroup analysis did not demonstrate any differences between LLRE+BFR and low- (LL) or high-load (HL) resistance exercise protocols. Studies including younger volunteers presented higher chronotropic responses (HR) than those with older volunteers.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite causing notable hemodynamic responses compared to no exercise, the short-term low-load resistance exercise with BFR modulates all hemodynamic parameters HR, SBP, DBP, and MBP, similarly to a conventional resistance exercise protocol, whether at low or high-intensity. The chronotropic response is slightly higher in younger healthy individuals despite the similarity regarding pressure parameters. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Current Trends in Blood Flow Restriction

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

Effect of Blood Flow Restriction on Functional, Physiological and Structural Variables of Muscle in Patients with Chronic Pathologies: A Systematic Review

The main objective of this systematic review of the current literature is to analyze the changes that blood flow restriction (BFR) causes in subjects with neuro-musculoskeletal and/or systemic pathologies focusing on the following variables: strength, physiological changes, structural changes and cardiocirculatory variables. The search was carried out in seven databases, including randomized clinical trials in which therapeutic exercise was combined with the blood flow restriction tool in populations with musculoskeletal pathologies. Outcome variables are strength, structural changes, physiological changes and cardiocirculatory variables. Twenty studies were included in the present study. Although there is a lot of heterogeneity between the interventions and evaluation instruments, we observed how the restriction of blood flow presents significant differences in the vast majority of the variables analyzed. In addition, we observed how BFR can become a supplement that provides benefits when performed with low intensity, similar to those obtained through high-intensity muscular efforts. The application of the BFR technique can provide benefits in the short and medium term to increase strength, muscle thickness and cardiovascular endurance, even improving the physiological level of the cardiovascular system. In addition, BFR combined with low-load exercises also achieves benefits comparable to high-intensity exercises without the application of BFR, benefiting patients who are unable to lift high loads.

Low load strength training, associated with or without blood flow restriction increased NO production and decreased production of reactive oxygen species in the in rats aorta

Studies have shown that strength training (ST) with blood flow restriction (BFR) in which low load is used (20-50% of 1 maximum voluntary contraction - MVC) can produce positive adaptations similar to ST with loads equal to or greater than 70% 1 MVC. Furthermore, recent studies have investigated the effects of STBFR on muscle adaptations, but few studies investigated the effects of STBFR on vascular function. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of the STBFR program on the vascular reactivity of the abdominal aorta of Wistar rats with femoral arteriovenous blood flow restriction. Male rats were divided into four groups: sedentary sham (S/S), sedentary with blood flow restriction (S/BFR), trained sham (T/S), and trained with blood flow restriction (T/BFR). The animals in the S/BFR and T/BFR groups underwent surgery to BFR in the femoral artery and vein. After one week, the trained groups started the ST which consisted of climbing ladder, six sets of 10 repetitions with 50% of 1 MVC assessed by maximum loaded weight (MLW) carried out for four weeks. Concentration-response curves to Acetylcholine (ACh: 10 nM - 100 μM) and Phenylephrine (PHE: 1 nM - 30 μM) were performed in aortic rings with intact endothelium. The production of nitric oxide (NO) and reactive oxygen species (ROS) in situ and the vascular remodeling marker (MMP-2) were also measured. The ST increased the strength of the T/S and T/BFR groups in MLW tests. The S/BFR group showed a 22% reduction in relaxation to acetylcholine, but exercise prevented this reduction in the T/BFR group. In animals without BFR, ST did not alter the response to acetylcholine. An increase in NO production was seen in T/S and T/BFR showed a reduction in ROS production (62% and 40%, respectively). In conclusion low load ST with BFR promotes similar vascular function responses to ST without BFR. Low load ST with and without BFR is interventions that can improve performance with similar magnitudes. Both training methods could have some benefits for vascular health due to NO production in the aorta increased in the T/S group and decreased production of reactive oxygen species in the T/BFR group.

Optimization of Exercise Countermeasures to Spaceflight Using Blood Flow Restriction

INTRODUCTION: During spaceflight missions, astronauts work in an extreme environment with several hazards to physical health and performance. Exposure to microgravity results in remarkable deconditioning of several physiological systems, leading to impaired physical condition and human performance, posing a major risk to overall mission success and crew safety. Physical exercise is the cornerstone of strategies to mitigate physical deconditioning during spaceflight. Decades of research have enabled development of more optimal exercise strategies and equipment onboard the International Space Station. However, the effects of microgravity cannot be completely ameliorated with current exercise countermeasures. Moreover, future spaceflight missions deeper into space require a new generation of spacecraft, which will place yet more constraints on the use of exercise by limiting the amount, size, and weight of exercise equipment and the time available for exercise. Space agencies are exploring ways to optimize exercise countermeasures for spaceflight, specifically exercise strategies that are more efficient, require less equipment, and are less time-consuming. Blood flow restriction exercise is a low intensity exercise strategy that requires minimal equipment and can elicit positive training benefits across multiple physiological systems. This method of exercise training has potential as a strategy to optimize exercise countermeasures during spaceflight and reconditioning in terrestrial and partial gravity environments. The possible applications of blood flow restriction exercise during spaceflight are discussed herein.Hughes L, Hackney KJ, Patterson SD. Optimization of exercise countermeasures to spaceflight using blood flow restriction. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2021; 93(1):32-45.

Time to Save Time: Beneficial Effects of Blood Flow Restriction Training and the Need to Quantify the Time Potentially Saved by Its Application During Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

The main goal of musculoskeletal rehabilitation is to achieve the pre-injury and/or pre-surgery physical function level with a low risk of re-injury. Blood flow restriction (BFR) training is a promising alternative to conventional therapy approaches during musculoskeletal rehabilitation because various studies support its beneficial effects on muscle mass, strength, aerobic capacity, and pain perception. In this perspective article, we used an evidence-based progressive model of a rehabilitative program that integrated BFR in 4 rehabilitation phases: (1) passive BFR, (2) BFR combined with aerobic training, (3) BFR combined with low-load resistance training, and (4) BFR combined with low-load resistance training and traditional high-load resistance training. Considering the current research, we propose that a BFR-assisted rehabilitation has the potential to shorten the time course of therapy to reach the stage where the patient is able to tolerate resistance training with high loads. The information and arguments presented are intended to stimulate future research, which compares the time to achieve rehabilitative milestones and their physiological bases in each stage of the musculoskeletal rehabilitation process. This requires the quantification of BFR training-induced adaptations (eg, muscle mass, strength, capillary-to-muscle-area ratio, hypoalgesia, molecular changes) and the associated changes in performance with a high measurement frequency (≤1 week) to test our hypothesis. This information will help to quantify the time saved by BFR-assisted musculoskeletal rehabilitation. This is of particular importance for patients, because the potentially accelerated recovery of physical functioning would allow them to return to their work and/or social life earlier. Furthermore, other stakeholders in the health care system (eg, physicians, nurses, physical therapists, insurance companies) might benefit from that with regard to work and financial burden.

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.

Application and side effects of blood flow restriction technique: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey of professionals

The physiological benefits of applying blood flow restriction (BFR) in isolation or in the presence of physical exercise have been widely documented in the scientific literature. Most investigations carried out under controlled laboratory conditions have found the technique to be safe. However, few studies have analyzed the use of the technique in clinical settings.To analyze how the BFR technique has been applied by professionals working in the clinical area and the prevalence of side effects (SEs) resulting from the use of this technique.This is a cross-sectional study. A total of 136 Brazilian professionals who perform some function related to physical rehabilitation, sports science, or physical conditioning participated in this study. Participants answered a self-administered online questionnaire consisting of 21 questions related to the professional profile and methodological aspects and SEs of the BFR technique.Professionals reported applying the BFR technique on individuals from different age groups from youth (≤18 years; 3.5%) to older adults (60-80 years; 30.7%), but mainly on people within the age group of 20 to 29 years (74.6%). A total of 99.1% of the professionals coupled the BFR technique with resistance exercise. Their main goals were muscle hypertrophy and physical rehabilitation. The majority (60.9%) of interviewees reported using BFR in durations of less than 5 minutes and the pressure used was mainly determined through the values of brachial blood pressure and arterial occlusion. Moreover, 92% of professionals declared observing at least 1 SE resulting from the BFR technique. Most professionals observed tingling (71.2%) and delayed onset of muscle soreness (55.8%). Rhabdomyolysis, fainting, and subcutaneous hemorrhaging were reported less frequently (1.9%, 3.8%, and 4.8%, respectively).Our findings indicate that the prescription of blood flow restriction technique results in minimal serious side effects when it is done in a proper clinical environment and follows the proposed recommendations found in relevant scientific literature.

EFFECTS OF BLOOD FLOW RESTRICTION IN LARGE AND SMALL MUSCLE GROUPS

ABSTRACT Introduction It is known that strength training brings improvements in health and sports performance by causing muscle hypertrophy and increased strength, as well as modifying some hemodynamic and physiological factors. Several strength training methodologies have been developed, one of which is vascular occlusion. There are few studies with large muscle groups due to poor adherence to the training style and the fact that vascular occlusion of large muscle groups is more difficult. Objective To verify and compare the hemodynamic effects of exercise with and without vascular occlusion in different muscle groups. Methods Quantitative crossover study, with cross-sectional and field procedures. The sample consisted of 10 physically active healthy male and female subjects between 18 and 30 years of age. With the cross-over design, all the volunteers participated in 3 groups: intervention with vascular occlusion, intervention without vascular occlusion and the control group. Results Overall, lactate and cholesterol remained elevated after 15 minutes of recovery and blood glucose and blood pressure did not vary among the groups. Conclusion Vascular occlusion training is an effective method for manipulating hemodynamic variables. Evidence level II; Clinical study.

Effects of Cardiovascular Interval Training in Healthy Elderly Subjects: A Systematic Review

The aim of this review is to demonstrate the effects of cardiovascular interval training (IT) on healthy elderly subjects. We used the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The following variables were observed: resting heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MBP), heart rate variability (HRV), baroreflex activity (BA), and maximal oxygen uptake (VO_2max). Studies were searched for in the MedLine, PubMed, and Sport Discus databases considering publications between 1990 and 2019. To find the studies, the keywords used were “Interval and Elderly Training” or “Interval Training and Baroreflex Sensing” or “Interval Training and Aging and Pressure Arterial and Blood Pressure Training” or “Interval Training and Variation in Aging and Heart Rate” or “Interval Training and Sensitivity to the Elderly and Baroreflex” or “Interval Training and Variability in the Elderly and Heart Rate.” The systematic search identified 1,140 hits. The analysis of the study was performed through a critical review of the content. One thousand one hundred forty articles were identified. Of these, 1,108 articles were excluded by checking the articles and abstracts. Finally, 32 studies were selected for full reading while 26 studies were eliminated because they did not contain a methodology according to the purpose of this review. Thus, six studies were included for the final analysis. The PEDro score was used for analyzing the study quality and found 4,8 ± 1,3 points (range: 3–6). Positive results were found with the different IT protocols in the observed variables. Results show that IT protocols can be an efficient method for functional improvement of cardiovascular and cardiorespiratory variables in the healthy elderly, especially HR, SBP, DBP, MAP, HRV, BA, and VO_2max. However, this method can be included in the prescription of aerobic training for the elderly to obtain conditional improvements in the cardiovascular system, thus being an important clinical intervention for the public.

Acute cardiovascular response to unilateral, bilateral, and alternating resistance exercise with blood flow restriction

AIM

Blood flow restriction (BFR) exercise is a common alternative to traditional high-load resistance exercise used to increase muscle size and strength. Some populations utilizing BFR at a low load may wish to limit their cardiovascular response to exercise. Different contraction patterns may attenuate the cardiovascular response, but this has not been compared using BFR.

PURPOSE

To compare the cardiovascular response to unilateral (UNI), bilateral (BIL), and alternating (ALT) BFR exercise contraction patterns.

METHODS

Twenty healthy participants performed four sets (30 s rest) of knee extensions to failure, using 30% one-repetition maximum, 40% arterial occlusion pressure, and each of the three contraction patterns (on different days, at the same time of day, separated by 2-10 days, randomized). Cardiovascular responses, presented as pre- to post-exercise mean changes (SD), were measured using pulse wave analysis and analyzed with Bayesian RMANOVA.

RESULTS

ALT caused greater changes in: aortic systolic [ΔmmHg: ALT = 21(8); UNI = 13(11); BIL = 15(8); BF₁₀ = 29.599], diastolic [ΔmmHg: ALT = 13(8); UNI = 7(11); BIL = 8(8); BF₁₀ = 5.175], and mean arterial [ΔmmHg: ALT = 19(8); UNI = 11(11); BIL = 13(7); BF₁₀ = 48.637] blood pressures. Aortic [ΔmmHg bpm: ALT = 4945(2340); UNI = 3294(1408); BIL = 3428 (1461); BF₁₀ = 113.659] and brachial [ΔmmHg bpm: ALT = 6134(2761); UNI = 4300(1709); BIL = 4487(1701); BF₁₀ = 31.845] rate pressure products, as well as heart rate [Δbpm: ALT = 26(14); UNI = 19(8); BIL = 19(11); BF₁₀ = 5.829] were greatest with ALT. Augmentation index [Δ%: UNI = -6(13); BIL = - 7(11); ALT = - 5(16); BF₁₀ = 0.155] and wave reflection magnitude [Δ%: UNI = - 5(9); BIL = - 4(7); ALT = - 4(7); BF₁₀ = 0.150] were not different.

CONCLUSION

Those at risk of a cardiovascular event may choose unilateral or bilateral BFR exercise over alternating until further work determines the degree to which it can be tolerated.

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.

Hemodynamic and perceptual responses to blood flow-restricted exercise among patients undergoing dialysis

End-stage kidney disease is associated with reduced exercise capacity, muscle atrophy, and impaired muscle function. While these may be improved with exercise, single modalities of exercise do not traditionally elicit improvements across all required physiological domains. Blood flow-restricted exercise may improve all of these physiological domains with low intensities traditionally considered insufficient for these adaptions. Investigation of this technique appeals, but is yet to be evaluated, in patients undergoing dialysis. With the use of a progressive crossover design, 10 satellite patients undergoing hemodialysis underwent three exercise conditions over 2 wk: two bouts (10 min) of unrestricted cycling during two consecutive hemodialysis sessions (condition 1), two bouts of cycling with blood flow restriction while off hemodialysis on 2 separate days (condition 2), and two bouts of cycling with blood flow restriction during two hemodialysis sessions (condition 3). Outcomes included hemodynamic responses (heart rate and blood pressure) throughout all sessions, participant-perceived exertion and discomfort on a Borg scale, and evaluation of ultrafiltration rates and dialysis adequacy (Kt/V) obtained post hoc. Hemodynamic responses were consistent regardless of condition. Significant increases in heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and mean arterial blood pressure (P < 0.05) were observed postexercise followed by a reduction in blood pressures during the 60-min recovery (12, 5, and 11 mmHg for systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial pressures, respectively). Blood pressures returned to predialysis ranges following the recovery period. Blood flow restriction did not affect ultrafiltration achieved or Kt/V. Hemodynamic safety and tolerability of blood flow restriction during aerobic exercise on hemodialysis is comparable to standard aerobic exercise.

Chronic Blood Flow Restriction Exercise Improves Objective Physical Function: A Systematic Review

Background: Blood flow restriction or KAATSU exercise training is associated with greater muscle mass and strength increases than non-blood flow restriction equivalent exercise. Blood flow restriction exercise has been proposed as a possible alternative to more physically demanding exercise prescriptions (such as high-load/high-intensity resistance training) in a range of clinical and chronic disease populations. While the maintenance of muscle mass and size with reduced musculoskeletal tissue loading appeals in many of these physically impaired populations, there remains a disconnect between some of the desired clinical measures for chronic disease populations and those commonly measured in the literature examining blood flow restriction exercise. While strength does play a vital role in physical function, task-specific objective measures of physical function indicative of activities of daily living are often more clinically relevant and applicable for evaluating the success of medical and surgical interventions or monitoring age- and disease-related physical decline.

Objective: To determine whether exercise interventions utilizing blood flow restriction are able to improve objective measures of physical function indicative of activities of daily living.

Methods: A systematic search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Springer identified 13 randomized control trials utilizing an exercise intervention combined with blood flow restriction, while measuring at least one objective measure of physical function. Participants were ≥18 years of age. Systematic review of the literature and quality assessment of the included studies used the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk bias.

Results: Data from 13 studies with a total of 332 participants showed blood flow restriction exercise, regardless of modality, most notably increased performance on the 30 s sit-to-stand and timed up and go tests, and generally improved physical function on other tests including walking tests, variations of sit-to-stand tests, and balance, jumping, and stepping tests.

Conclusions: From the evidence available, blood flow restriction exercise of multiple modalities improved objective measures of physical function indicative of activities of daily living.

Blood Flow Restriction Training Reduces Blood Pressure During Exercise Without Affecting Metaboreflex Activity

Objective: Blood flow restriction training (BFRT) has been proposed to induce muscle hypertrophy, but its safety remains controversial as it may increase mean arterial pressure (MAP) due to muscle metaboreflex activation. However, BFR training also causes metabolite accumulation that may desensitize type III and IV nerve endings, which trigger muscle metaboreflex. Then, we hypothesized that a period of BFR training would result in blunted hemodynamic activation during muscle metaboreflex.

Methods: 17 young healthy males aged 18–25 yrs enrolled in this study. Hemodynamic responses during muscle metaboreflex were assessed by means of postexercise muscle ischemia (PEMI) at baseline (T0) and after 1 month (T1) of dynamic BFRT. BFRT consisted of 3-min rhythmic handgrip exercise applied 3 days/week (30 contractions per minute at 30% of maximum voluntary contraction) in the dominant arm. On the first week, the occlusion was set at 75% of resting systolic blood pressure (always obtained after 3 min of resting) and increased 25% every week, until reaching 150% of resting systolic pressure at week four. Hemodynamic measurements were assessed by means of impedance cardiography.

Results: BFRT reduced MAP during handgrip exercise (T1: 96.3 ± 8.3 mmHg vs. T0: 102.0 ± 9.53 mmHg, p = 0.012). However, no significant time effect was detected for MAP during the metaboreflex activation (P > 0.05). Additionally, none of the observed hemodynamic outcomes, including systemic vascular resistance (SVR), showed significant difference between T0 and T1 during the metaboreflex activation (P > 0.05).

Conclusion: BFRT reduced blood pressure during handgrip exercise, thereby suggesting a potential hypotensive effect of this modality of training. However, MAP reduction during handgrip seemed not to be provoked by lowered metaboreflex activity.

Blood pressure response between resistance exercise with and without blood flow restriction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare, by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis, the effects of resistance training with and without blood flow restriction (BFR) on blood pressure (BP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This review was composed according to the preferred Reporting items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Searches were carried out in the databases PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science. BP was the main outcome for the analysis of the acute, post-exercise, and chronic effect of resistance exercise with and without BFR. Search results were limited to studies investigating the effect of resistance training with and without BFR on acute or chronic BP, published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal in English.

KEY FINDINGS

Seventeen references were eligible. During exercise, the diastolic BP (DBP) was higher in exercise with BFR (ES = 17.84) in comparison to traditional exercise with loads ≥60% 1RM (ES = 5.53; P < 0.01); and the systolic BP (SBP) and DBP were higher during exercise with BFR in hypertensive individuals (ES = 69.83 and 43.66) in comparison to traditional exercise with loads <60% 1RM (ES = 48.05 and 28.37; P < 0.05). In the post-exercise analysis, exercise with BFR presented lower values for SBP (ES = -5.13; P = 0.02) and DBP (ES = -4.70; P < 0.01).

SIGNIFICANCE

Although resistance exercise with BFR resulted in greater post-exercise hypotension than traditional exercise, higher SBP and/or DBP values were observed during exercise with BFR compared to traditional exercise, especially in hypertensive individuals. Thus, exercise with BFR should be prescribed with caution when BP control is necessary during exercise.

Cardiac autonomic and haemodynamic recovery after a single session of aerobic exercise with and without blood flow restriction in older adults

This study investigated the autonomic and haemodynamic responses to different aerobic exercise loads, with and without blood flow restriction (BFR). In a crossover study, 21 older adults (8 males and 13 females) completed different aerobic exercise sessions: low load without BFR (LL) (40% VO_2max), low load with BFR (LL-BFR) (40% VO_2max + 50% BFR) and high load without BFR (HL) (70% VO_2max). Heart rate variability and haemodynamic responses were recorded during rest and throughout 30 min of recovery. HL reduced R-R interval, the root mean square of successive difference of R-R intervals and high frequency during 30 min of recovery at a greater magnitude compared with LL and LL-BFR. Sympathetic-vagal balance increased the values for HL during 30 min of recovery at a greater magnitude when compared with LL and LL-BFR. Post-exercise haemodynamic showed reduced values of double product at 30 min of recovery compared to rest in LL-BFR, while HL showed higher values compared to rest, LL-BFR and LL. Reduced systolic blood pressure was observed for LL-BFR (30 min) compared to rest. Autonomic and haemodynamic responses indicate lower cardiovascular stress after LL-BFR compared to HL, being this method, besides the functional adaptations, a potential choice to attenuate the cardiovascular stress after exercise in older adults.

Acute Effects of Resistance Exercise With Continuous and Intermittent Blood Flow Restriction on Hemodynamic Measurements and Perceived Exertion

This study compared the acute effects of low-intensity resistance exercise (RE) sessions for the upper limb with continuous and intermittent blood flow restriction (BFR) and high-intensity RE with no BFR on lactate, heart rate, double product (DP; heart rate times systolic blood pressure), and perceived exertion (RPE). Ten recreationally trained men (1-5 years strength training; age mean = 19 ± 0.82 years) performed three experimental protocols in random order: (a) low-intensity RE at 20% one-repetition maximum (1RM) with intermittent BFR (LI + IBFR), (b) low-intensity RE at 20% 1RM with continuous BFR (LI + CBFR), and (c) high-intensity RE at 80% 1RM. The three RE protocols increased lactate and DP at the end of the session ( p < .05) and increased heart rate at the end of each exercise ( p < .05). However, greater local and general RPE was observed in the high-intensity protocol compared with LI + IBFR and LI + CBFR in the lat pull-down, triceps curl, and biceps curl exercises ( p < .05). A greater percentage change in DP and lactate was observed for continuous BFR compared with intermittent BFR; however, RPE was lower for intermittent BFR. In conclusion, intermittent BFR appears to be an excellent option for physical training because it did not differ significantly from continuous BFR in any variable and promoted a lower percentage change in DP and RPE.