The Effect of Body Position and the Reliability of Upper Limb Arterial Occlusion Pressure Using a Handheld Doppler Ultrasound for Blood Flow Restriction Training

Limb dominance does not have a meaningful impact on arterial occlusion pressure

INTRODUCTION

Limb dominancy has been suggested, by some, to influence arterial occlusion pressure (AOP). However, we hypothesized that the differences in AOP between the dominant and nondominant legs were more likely explained by differences in cuff position.

AIMS

To determine the impact of limb dominance, composition, and cuff position on AOP in the context of error associated with measuring AOP twice on the same leg.

METHODS

Fifty-eight adults (30 males) volunteered to have AOP measured on their dominant legs with the cuff bladder covering their inner thighs and on their nondominant legs with the bladder covering their inner and outer thighs (in random order). Thigh circumference and muscle and fat thicknesses were also measured on each leg.

RESULTS

We found evidence for differences in AOP between legs [median δ of -0.222, 95% credible interval: (-0.429, -0.016)] when the cuff position was matched. The mean difference was -2.8 mmHg, and the 95% limit of agreement in a Bland-Altman plot was -24.8 to 19.0 mmHg. When plotting this alongside an error range (i.e., 95% limits of agreement) of taking the same measurement twice from our previous study (Spitz et al., 2020), 52 out of 58 measurements were within the error range. This difference was not due to the cuff position. Additionally, there was no evidence that thigh circumference or composition (muscle/fat thickness) moderated any difference between limbs.

CONCLUSION

The difference in AOP between limbs is small and is mostly indistinguishable from the difference observed from taking the measurement twice on the same limb.

Blood flow restriction: The acute effects of body tilting and reduced gravity analogues on limb occlusion pressure

Blood flow restriction (BFR) has been identified as a potential countermeasure to mitigate physiological deconditioning during spaceflight. Guidelines recommend that tourniquet pressure be prescribed relative to limb occlusion pressure (LOP); however, it is unclear whether body tilting or reduced gravity analogues influence LOP. We examined LOP at the leg and arm during supine bedrest and bodyweight suspension (BWS) at 6° head-down tilt (HDT), horizontal (0°), and 9.5° head-up tilt (HUT) positions. Twenty-seven adults (age, 26 ± 5 years; height, 1.75 ± 0.08 m; body mass, 73 ± 12 kg) completed all tilts during bedrest. A subgroup (n = 15) additionally completed the tilts during BWS. In each position, LOP was measured twice in the leg and arm using the Delfi Personalized Tourniquet System after 5 min of rest and again after a further 5 min. The LOP at the leg increased significantly from 6° HDT to 9.5° HUT in bedrest and BWS by 9-15 mmHg (Cohen's d = 0.7-1.0). Leg LOP was significantly higher during BWS at horizontal and 9.5° HUT postures relative to the same angles during bedrest by 8 mmHg (Cohen's d = 0.6). Arm LOP remained unchanged between body tilts and analogues. Intraclass correlation coefficients for LOP measurements taken after an initial and subsequent 5 min rest period in all conditions ranged between 0.91-0.95 (leg) and 0.83-0.96 (arm). It is advised that LOP be measured before the application of a vascular occlusion in the same body tilt/setting to which it is applied to minimize discrepancies between the actual and prescribed tourniquet pressure.

Comparing the acute responses between a manual and automated blood flow restriction system

The purpose of this study was to compare acute responses between manual and automated blood flow restriction (BFR) systems.

Methods

A total of 33 individuals completed this study. On visit 1, arterial occlusion pressure (AOP, mm Hg), cardiovascular responses, and discomfort (RPE-D) were measured with each BFR system at rest. On visit 2, unilateral bicep curls were completed [30% one-repetition maximum; 50% AOP] with one system per arm. Muscle thickness (MT, cm) and maximal force (N) were assessed before (pre), immediately (post-0), 5 min (post-5), and 10 min (post-10) post-exercise. Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE-E) and ratings of perceived discomfort (RPE-D) were assessed throughout the exercise. AOP and repetitions were compared with Bayesian paired t-tests. Other outcomes were compared with Bayesian RMANOVAs. BF10 represents the likelihood of the best model vs. the null. The results are presented as mean ± SD.

Results

Supine cardiovascular responses and RPE-D were similar for manual and automated (all BF10 ≤ 0.2). Supine AOP for manual (157 ± 20) was higher than that of automated (142 ± 17; BF10 = 44496.0), but similar while standing (manual: 141 ± 17; automated: 141 ± 22; BF10 = 0.2). MT (time, BF10 = 6.047e + 40) increased from Pre (3.9 ± 0.7) to Post-0 (4.4 ± 0.8; BF10 = 2.969e + 28), with Post-0 higher than Post-5 (4.3 ± 0.8) and Post-10 (4.3 ± 0.8; both BF10 ≥ 275.2). Force (time, BF10 = 1.246e + 29) decreased from Pre (234.5 ± 79.2) to Post-0 (149.8 ± 52.3; BF10 = 2.720e + 22) and increased from Post-0 to Post-5 (193.3 ± 72.7; BF10 = 1.744e + 13), with Post-5 to Post-10 (194.0 ± 70.6; BF10 = 0.2) being similar. RPE-E increased over sets. RPE-D was lower for manual than automated. Repetitions per set were higher for manual (Set 1: 37 ± 18; Set 4: 9 ± 5) than automated (Set 1: 30 ± 7; Set 4: 7 ± 3; all BF10 ≥ 9.7).

Conclusion

Under the same relative pressure, responses are mostly similar between BFR systems, although a manual system led to lower exercise discomfort and more repetitions.

Validity and reliability of a wearable blood flow restriction training device for arterial occlusion pressure assessment

Purpose

The blood flow restriction (BFR) training is an effective approach to promoting muscle strength, muscle hypertrophy, and regulating the peripheral vascular system. It is recommended to use to the percentage of individual arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) to ensure safety and effectiveness. The gold standard method for assessing arterial occlusive disease is typically measured using Doppler ultrasound. However, its high cost and limited accessibility restrict its use in clinical and practical applications. A novel wearable BFR training device (Airbands) with automatic AOP assessment provides an alternative solution. This study aims to examine the reliability and validity of the wearable BFR training device.

Methods

Ninety-two participants (46 female and 46 male) were recruited for this study. Participants were positioned in the supine position with the wearable BFR training device placed on the proximal portion of the right thigh. AOP was measured automatically by the software program and manually by gradually increasing the pressure until the pulse was no longer detected by color Doppler ultrasound, respectively. Validity, inter-rater reliability, and test-retest reliability were assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis.

Results

The wearable BFR training device demonstrated good validity (ICC = 0.85, mean difference = 4.1 ± 13.8 mmHg [95% CI: -23.0 to 31.2]), excellent inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.97, mean difference = -1.4 ± 6.7 mmHg [95% CI: -14.4 to 11.7]), and excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.94, mean difference = 0.6 ± 8.6 mmHg [95% CI: -16.3 to 17.5]) for the assessment of AOP. These results were robust in both male and female subgroups.

Conclusion

The wearable BFR training device can be used as a valid and reliable tool to assess the AOP of the lower limb in the supine position during BFR training.

The effect of individualised post-exercise blood flow restriction on recovery following strenuous resistance exercise: A randomised controlled trial

The purpose was to clarify the effect of individualised post-exercise blood flow restriction (PE-BFR) on measures of recovery following strenuous resistance exercise. Twenty resistance-trained adults were randomised to a PE-BFR or control (CON) group and completed a fatigue protocol of five sets of 10 repetitions of maximal intensity concentric and eccentric seated knee extension exercise. Participants then lied supine with cuffs applied to the upper thigh and intermittently inflated to 80% limb occlusion pressure (PE-BFR) or 20 mmHg (CON) for 30 min (3 × 5 min per leg). Peak torque (PT), time-to-peak torque (TTP), countermovement jump height (CMJ), muscle soreness (DOMS) and perceived recovery (PR) were measured pre-fatigue, immediately post-fatigue and at 1, 24, 48 and 72 h post-fatigue. Using a linear mixed-effect model, PE-BFR was found to have greater recovery of CMJ at 48 h (mean difference [MD]=-2.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] -5.1, 0.5, p = 0.019), lower DOMS at 48 (MD = 3.0, 95% CI 1.2, 4.9, p = 0.001) and 72 h (MD = 1.95, 95% CI -1.2, 1.5, p = 0.038) and higher PR scores at 24 (MD = -1.7, 95% CI -3.4, -0.1, p = 0.038), 48 (MD = -3.1, 95% CI -4.8, -1.5, p < 0.001) and 72 h (MD = -2.2, 95% CI -3.8, -0.5, p = 0.011). These findings suggest that individualised PE-BFR accelerates recovery after strenuous exercise.

Measurements of Arterial Occlusion Pressure Using Hand-Held Devices

ABSTRACT

Vehrs, PR, Reynolds, S, Allen, J, Barrett, R, Blazzard, C, Burbank, T, Hart, H, Kasper, N, Lacey, R, Lopez, D, and Fellingham, GW. Measurements of arterial occlusion pressure using hand-held devices. J Strength Cond Res 38(5): 873-880, 2024-Arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) of the brachial artery was measured simultaneously using Doppler ultrasound (US), a hand-held Doppler (HHDOP), and a pulse oximeter (PO) in the dominant (DOM) and nondominant (NDOM) arms of males ( n = 21) and females ( n = 23) using continuous (CONT) and incremental (INCR) cuff inflation protocols. A mixed-model analysis of variance revealed significant ( p < 0.05) overall main effects between AOP measured using a CONT (115.7 ± 10.9) or INCR (115.0 ± 11.5) cuff inflation protocol; between AOP measured using US (116.3 ± 11.2), HHDOP (115.4 ± 11.2), and PO (114.4 ± 11.2); and between males (120.7 ± 10.6) and females (110.5 ± 9.4). The small overall difference (1.81 ± 3.3) between US and PO measures of AOP was significant ( p < 0.05), but the differences between US and HHDOP and between HHDOP and PO measures of AOP were not significant. There were no overall differences in AOP between the DOM and NDOM arms. Trial-to-trial variance in US measurements of AOP was not significant when using either cuff inflation protocol but was significant when using HHDOP and PO and a CONT cuff inflation protocol. Bland-Altman plots revealed reasonable limits of agreement for both HHDOP and PO measures of AOP. The small differences in US, HHDOP, and PO measurements of AOP when using CONT or INCR cuff inflation protocols are of minimal practical importance. The choice of cuff inflation protocol is one of personal preference. Hand-held Doppler of PO can be used to assess AOP before using blood flow restriction during exercise.

Development of a prediction equation to estimate lower-limb arterial occlusion pressure with a thigh sphygmomanometer

INTRODUCTION

Previous investigators have developed prediction equations to estimate arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) for blood flow restriction (BFR) exercise. Most equations have not been validated and are designed for use with expensive cuff systems. Thus, their implementation is limited for practitioners.

PURPOSE

To develop and validate an equation to predict AOP in the lower limbs when applying an 18 cm wide thigh sphygmomanometer (SPHYG18cm).

METHODS

Healthy adults (n = 143) underwent measures of thigh circumference (TC), skinfold thickness (ST), and estimated muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) along with brachial and femoral systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure. Lower-limb AOP was assessed in a seated position at the posterior tibial artery (Doppler ultrasound) using a SPHYG18cm. Hierarchical linear regression models were used to determine predictors of AOP. The best set of predictors was used to construct a prediction equation to estimate AOP. Performance of the equation was evaluated and internally validated using bootstrap resampling.

RESULTS

Models containing measures of either TC or thigh composition (ST and CSA) paired with brachial blood pressures explained the most variability in AOP (54%) with brachial SBP accounting for majority of explained variability. A prediction equation including TC, brachial SBP, and age showed good predictability (R2 = 0.54, RMSE = 7.18 mmHg) and excellent calibration. Mean difference between observed and predicted values was 0.0 mmHg and 95% Limits of Agreement were ± 18.35 mmHg. Internal validation revealed small differences between apparent and optimism adjusted performance measures, suggesting good generalizability.

CONCLUSION

This prediction equation for use with a SPHYG18cm provided a valid way to estimate lower-limb AOP without expensive equipment.

The effects of lower limb ischaemic preconditioning: a systematic review

Ischaemic preconditioning (IPC) involves the use of repeated occlusions and reperfusions of the peripheral muscle blood supply at a limb. This systematic literature review examines the typical responses in response to the method of application during an IPC applied at the lower limb. This review focuses on the physiological responses for VO2max, haemoglobin, metabolic and genetic responses to various IPC interventions. The literature search was performed using four databases and assessed using the PRISMA search strategy and COSMIN to assess the quality of the articles. Seventeen articles were included in the review, with a total of 237 participants. While there is variation in the method of application, the average occlusion pressure was 222 ± 34 mmHg, ranging from 170 to 300 mmHg typically for 3 or 4 occlusion cycles. The distribution of this pressure is influenced by cuff width, although 8 studies failed to report cuff width. The majority of studies applies IPC at the proximal thigh with 16/17 studies applying an occlusion below this location. The results highlighted the disparities and conflicting findings in response to various IPC methods. While there is some agreement in certain aspects of the IPC manoeuvre such as the location of the occlusion during lower limb IPC, there is a lack of consensus in the optimal protocol to elicit the desired responses. This offers the opportunity for future research to refine the protocols, associated responses, and mechanisms responsible for these changes during the application of IPC.

Use of a handheld Doppler to measure brachial and femoral artery occlusion pressure

Objective: Measurement of arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) is essential to the safe and effective use of blood flow restriction during exercise. Use of a Doppler ultrasound (US) is the "gold standard" method to measure AOP. Validation of a handheld Doppler (HHDOP) device to measure AOP could make the measurement of AOP more accessible to practitioners in the field. The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of AOP measurements of the brachial and femoral arteries using an HHDOP. Methods: We simultaneously measured AOP using a "gold standard" US and a HHDOP in the dominant and non-dominant arms (15 males; 15 females) and legs (15 males; 15 females). Results: There were no differences in limb circumference or limb volume in the dominant and non-dominant arms and legs between males and females or between the dominant and non-dominant arms and legs of males and females. The differences between US and HHDOP measures of AOP in the dominant and non-dominant arms and legs were either not significant or small (<10 mmHg) and of little practical importance. There were no sex differences in AOP measurements of the femoral artery (p > 0.60). Bland-Altman analysis yielded an average bias (-0.65 mmHg; -2.93 mmHg) and reasonable limits of agreement (±5.56 mmHg; ±5.58 mmHg) between US and HHDOP measures of brachial and femoral artery AOP, respectively. Conclusion: HHDOP yielded acceptable measures of AOP of the brachial and femoral arteries and can be used to measure AOP by practitioners for the safe and effective use of blood flow restriction. Due to the potential differences in AOP between dominant and non-dominant limbs, AOP should be measured in each limb.

Can We Make Blood Flow Restriction Training More Accessible? Validity of a Low-Cost Blood Flow Restriction Device to Estimate Arterial Occlusion Pressure

ABSTRACT

Keller, M, Faude, O, Gollhofer, A, and Centner, C. Can we make blood flow restriction training more accessible? Validity of a low-cost blood flow restriction device to estimate arterial occlusion pressure. J Strength Cond Res 37(8): 1581-1587, 2023-Evidence indicates that low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction (BFR) results in comparable gains in muscle mass and muscle strength as high-load resistance training without BFR. Low-load BFR training is a promising tool for areas such as rehabilitation because individuals are exposed to low mechanical stress. However, BFR training is only safe and effective when the cuff pressure is individually adjusted to the arterial occlusion pressure (AOP). Generally, thresholds for AOP are typically determined with sophisticated laboratory material, including Doppler ultrasound and tourniquet systems. Therefore, this study investigated the validity of a low-cost BFR product with automatic AOP assessment (AirBands International) compared with the gold standard for determining the individual AOP. Valid measurements were obtained at the arms and legs in 104 healthy volunteers. For the arms ( n = 49), a Bland-Altman analysis revealed a mean difference of 7 ± 13 mm Hg between the 2 methods, with slightly higher pressure levels for the gold standard (131 ± 14 mm Hg) than for the low-cost device (125 ± 17 mm Hg). For the legs ( n = 55), the low-cost device reached its maximum pressure capacity in 70% of subjects during AOP identification, making the results on the legs unreliable. Although the low-cost device is a valid tool for identifying the individual AOP in the arms, the device cannot be recommended for use at the legs because of its limited pressure capacity. When using the low-cost device for BFR training at the arms, it is recommended to apply the cuff pressure to 60% of the individual AOP to meet current BFR training guidelines.

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.

Comparison of finger flexor resistance training, with and without blood flow restriction, on perceptional and physiological responses in advanced climbers

This study compared perceptional and physiological responses of finger flexor exercise performed with free flow and blood flow restriction (BFR). Thirteen male advanced climbers completed three sessions of finger flexor resistance exercise at (1) 40% of MVC (Low) and (2) 75% of MVC (High) and (3) BFR at 40% of MVC (Low + BFR) in a randomized and counterbalanced order. Rate of perceived exertion for effort (RPE) and discomfort (RPD), session pleasure/displeasure (sPDF), exercise enjoyment (EES), lactate concentration and oxygen saturation were recorded after the last set. Both low-intensity sessions induced higher RPD than High (p = 0.018-0.022, ES = 1.01-1.09) and High was perceived as more enjoyable than Low-BFR (p = 0.031, ES = 1.08). No differences were found for RPE or sPDF (p = 0.132-0.804). Lactate was elevated more after High than the Low-sessions (p < 0.001, ES = 1.88-2.08). Capillary oxygen saturation was lower after Low + BFR compared to the other sessions (p = 0.031, ES = 1.04-1.27). Finally, the exercise volume was greater in Low compared to High (p = 0.022, ES = 1.14) and Low + BFR (p = 0.020, ES = 0.77). In conclusion, among advanced male climbers, performing Low + BFR led to a similar exercise volume but was perceived as more discomforting and less enjoyable compared to High. The Low session yielded similar responses as the Low + BFR but required a much greater exercise volume.

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.