Ischemic Therapy in Musculoskeletal Medicine

Understanding lower limb blood flow occlusion parameters for use in field-based settings

Reduction of blood flow to the limb using cuffs before or during exercise has become increasingly popular for training and rehabilitation. Our study tested the effects of cuff brand/width on pressures required to reach limb occlusion pressure (LOP) and developed, cross-validated, and compared accuracy of two LOP prediction equations to previously created methods. Supine LOP was determined in the distal popliteal artery using four different cuff brands/widths in 23 adult participants. Participants then had demographic and resting variables assessed, and two LOP prediction equations were developed from these variables and were compared to five previously developed models and a method using posterior tibial artery palpation for LOP assessment in an independent sample (n = 14 adult runners). For cuff comparison, the widest two cuffs had significantly lower LOP (mean ~149 mmHg) than the narrowest cuffs (mean ~176 mmHg), with the narrowest cuff unable to reach LOP. The eight methods used to predict LOP ranged in accuracy (mean absolute percent errors 3.9-23.0%), with highest accuracy in equations using mean arterial pressure (MAP) and BMI. Practitioners using blood flow reduction methods should be consistent with cuff use due to demonstrated differences across brands/widths. Equations using MAP and BMI appear best for prediction of leg LOP.

Blood flow restriction during training for improving the aerobic capacity and sport performance of trained athletes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

/Objective: Combining blood flow restriction (BFR) with endurance training is exponentially increasing although the benefits are unclear in trained athletes. We aimed to describe the effects of aerobic and/or anaerobic training programmes combined with BFR on the aerobic capacity and related sport performance of trained athletes.

METHODS

Databases used were MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, LILACS, IBECS, CINHAL, COCHRANE, SCIELO and PEDro, through October 2021. For study selection, criteria included (a) clinical trials that recruited trained healthy athletes, that (b) proposed BFR in combination with aerobic/anaerobic training programmes (≥8 sessions) and that (c) evaluated either aerobic capacity or related sport performance. For data extraction, a reviewer extracted the data, and another reviewer independently verified it. The tool RoB 2 (Risk of bias 2) was used to assess risk of bias.

RESULTS

Ten studies met the eligibility criteria, capturing a total of 207 participants. Although it did not reveal any significant effects from training with BFR on aerobic capacity compared to the same training without BFR, effect sizes were extremely high. Subgroup analyses according to the intensity of the training programmes found similar results for low-to-moderate or high-intensity training compared to the same sessions without BFR.

CONCLUSION

Although adding BFR to training sessions always produce benefits from baseline in aerobic capacity and sport performance of trained athletes, these results are not better than those observed after the same training sessions without BFR. The reduced number of studies, small sample sizes and some concerns regarding risk of bias should be highlighted as limitations.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021248212.