Physiological and perceptual responses to acute arm cranking with blood flow restriction

INTRODUCTION

Lower-body aerobic exercise with blood flow restriction (BFR) offers a unique approach for stimulating improvements in muscular function and aerobic capacity. While there are more than 40 reports documenting acute and chronic responses to lower-body aerobic exercise with BFR, responses to upper-body aerobic exercise with BFR are not clearly established.

PURPOSE

We evaluated acute physiological and perceptual responses to arm cranking with and without BFR.

METHODS

Participants (N = 10) completed 4 arm cranking (6 × 2 min exercise, 1 min recovery) conditions: low-intensity at 40%VO2peak (LI), low-intensity at 40%VO2peak with BFR at 50% of arterial occlusion pressure (BFR50), low-intensity at 40%VO2peak with BFR at 70% of arterial occlusion pressure (BFR70), and high-intensity at 80%VO2peak (HI) while tissue oxygenation, cardiorespiratory, and perceptual responses were assessed.

RESULTS

During exercise, tissue saturation for BFR50 (54 ± 6%), BFR70 (55 ± 6%), and HI (54 ± 8%) decreased compared to LI (61 ± 5%, all P < 0.01) and changes in deoxyhemoglobin for BFR50 (11 ± 4), BFR70 (15 ± 6), and HI (16 ± 10) increased compared to LI (4 ± 2, all P < 0.01). During recovery intervals, tissue saturation for BFR50 and BFR70 decreased further and deoxyhemoglobin for BFR50 and BFR70 increased further (all P < 0.04). Heart rate for BFR70 and HI increased by 9 ± 9 and 50 ± 15b/min, respectively, compared to LI (both P < 0.02). BFR50 (8 ± 2, 1.0 ± 1.0) and BFR70 (10 ± 2, 2.1 ± 1.4) elicited greater arm-specific perceived exertion (6-20 scale) and pain (0-10 scale) compared to LI (7 ± 1, 0.2 ± 0.5, all P < 0.05) and pain for BFR70 did not differ from HI (1.7 ± 1.9).

CONCLUSION

Arm cranking with BFR decreased tissue saturation and increased deoxyhemoglobin without causing excessive cardiorespiratory strain and pain.

Effects of remote ischemic conditioning on conditioned pain modulation and cardiac autonomic modulation in women with knee osteoarthritis: placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial protocol

BACKGROUND

It is estimated that over 240 million people worldwide have osteoarthritis, which is a major contributor to chronic pain and central changes in pain processing, including endogenous pain modulation. The autonomic nervous system plays a crucial role in the pain regulatory process. One of the main mechanisms of remote ischemic conditioning is neuronal signaling from the preconditioned extremity to the heart. This study aims to analyze the acute effect of remote ischemic conditioning on local pain, conditioned pain modulation, and cardiac autonomic control in women with knee osteoarthritis and to see if there is a correlation between them.

METHODS

Women more than 50 years with knee osteoarthritis diagnosed according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria in the postmenopausal period will be considered eligible. The study will have blind randomization, be placebo-controlled, and be balanced in a 1:1 ratio. The total of 44 participants will be divided into two groups (22 participants per group): (i) remote ischemic conditioning and (ii) placebo remote ischemic conditioning. Protocol consisting of four cycles of total ischemia, followed immediately by four cycles of 5 min of vascular reperfusion, totaling 40 min. The primary outcomes in the protocol are conditioned pain modulation, which has the pressure pain threshold (kgf/cm2) as its primary outcome measure, and cardiac autonomic modulation, which has the indices found in heart rate variability as its primary outcome measure. Comparisons will be performed using generalized linear mixed models fitted to the data. For correlation, the Pearson or Spearman test will be used depending on the normality of the data. All analyses will assume a significance level of p < 0.05.

DISCUSSION

It is believed that the results of this study will present a new perspective on the interaction between the pain processing system and the cardiovascular system; they will provide the professional and the patient with a greater guarantee of cardiovascular safety in the use of the intervention; it will provide knowledge about acute responses and this will allow future chronic intervention strategies that aim to be used in the clinical environment, inserted in the multimodal approach, for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05059652. Registered on 30 August 2021. Last update on 28 March 2023.

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.

Current Techniques Used for Practical Blood Flow Restriction Training: A Systematic Review

ABSTRACT

Bielitzki, R, Behrendt, T, Behrens, M, and Schega, L. Current techniques used for practical blood flow restriction training: a systematic review. J Strength Cond Res 35(10): 2936-2951, 2021-The purpose of this article was to systematically review the available scientific evidence on current methods used for practical blood flow restriction (pBFR) training together with application characteristics as well as advantages and disadvantages of each technique. A literature search was conducted in different databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library) for the period from January 2000 to December 2020. Inclusion criteria for this review were (a) original research involving humans, (b) the use of elastic wraps or nonpneumatic cuffs, and (c) articles written in English. Of 26 studies included and reviewed, 15 were conducted using an acute intervention (11 in the lower body and 4 in the upper body), and 11 were performed with a chronic intervention (8 in the lower body, 1 in the upper body, and 2 in both the upper and the lower body). Three pBFR techniques could be identified: (a) based on the perceptual response (perceived pressure technique), (b) based on the overlap of the cuff (absolute and relative overlap technique), and (c) based on the cuffs' maximal tensile strength (maximal cuff elasticity technique). In conclusion, the perceived pressure technique is simple, valid for the first application, and can be used independently of the cuffs' material properties, but is less reliable within a person over time. The absolute and relative overlap technique as well as the maximal cuff elasticity technique might be applied more reliably due to markings, but require a cuff with constant material properties over time.

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

BACKGROUND

The precise calculation of arterial occlusive pressure is essential to accurately prescribe individualized pressures during blood flow restriction training. Arterial occlusion pressure in the lower limb varies significantly between different body positions while similar reports for the upper limb are lacking.

HYPOTHESIS

Body position has a significant effect in upper limb arterial occlusive pressure. Using cuffs with manual pump and a handheld Doppler ultrasound can be a reliable method to determine upper limb arterial blood flow restriction.

STUDY DESIGN

A randomized repeated measures design.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 3.

METHODS

Forty-two healthy participants (age mean ± SD = 28.1 ± 7.7 years) completed measurements in supine, seated, and standing position by 3 blinded raters. A cuff with a manual pump and a handheld acoustic ultrasound were used. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test with Bonferroni correction was used to analyze differences between body positions. A within-subject coefficient of variation and an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) test were used to calculate reproducibility and reliability, respectively.

RESULTS

A significantly higher upper limb arterial occlusive pressure was found in seated compared with supine position (P < 0.031) and in supine compared with standing position (P < 0.031) in all raters. An ICC of 0.894 (95% CI = 0.824-0.939, P < 0.001) was found in supine, 0.973 (95% CI = 0.955-0.985, P < 0.001) in seated, and 0.984 (95% CI = 0.973-0.991, P < 0.001) in standing position. ICC for test-retest reliability was found 0.90 (95% CI = 0.814-0.946, P < 0.001), 0.873 (95% CI = 0.762-0.93, P < 0.001), and 0.858 (95% CI = 0.737-0.923, P < 0.001) in the supine, seated, and standing position, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Upper limb arterial occlusive pressure was significantly dependent on body position. The method showed excellent interrater reliability and repeatability between different days.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Prescription of individualized pressures during blood flow restriction training requires measurement of upper limb arterial occlusive pressure in the appropriate position. The use of occlusion cuffs with a manual pump and a handheld Doppler ultrasound showed excellent reliability; however, the increased measurement error compared with the differences in arterial occlusive pressure between certain positions should be carefully considered for the clinical application of the method.

STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATIONS TAXONOMY (SORT)

B.

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.

Blood Flow Restriction Training: To Adjust or Not Adjust the Cuff Pressure Over an Intervention Period?

Blood flow restriction (BFR) training combines exercise and partial reduction of muscular blood flow using a pressured cuff. BFR training has been used to increase strength and muscle mass in healthy and clinical populations. A major methodological concern of BFR training is blood flow restriction pressure (BFRP) delivered during an exercise bout. Although some studies increase BFRP throughout a training intervention, it is unclear whether BFRP adjustments are pivotal to maintain an adequate BFR during a training period. While neuromuscular adaptations induced by BFR are widely studied, cardiovascular changes throughout training intervention with BFR and their possible relationship with BFRP are less understood. This study aimed to discuss the need for BFRP adjustment based on cardiovascular outcomes and provide directions for future researches. We conducted a literature review and analyzed 29 studies investigating cardiovascular adaptations following BFR training. Participants in the studies were healthy, middle-aged adults, older adults and clinical patients. Cuff pressure, when adjusted, was increased during the training period. However, cardiovascular outcomes did not provide a plausible rationale for cuff pressure increase. In contrast, avoiding increments in cuff pressure may minimize discomfort, pain and risks associated with BFR interventions, particularly in clinical populations. Given that cardiovascular adaptations induced by BFR training are conflicting, it is challenging to indicate whether increases or decreases in BFRP are needed. Based on the available evidence, we suggest that future studies investigate if maintaining or decreasing cuff pressure makes BFR training safer and/or more comfortable with similar physiological adaptation.

Effects of Individualized Ischemic Preconditioning on Protection Against Eccentric Exercise-Induced Muscle Damage: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The effects of ischemic preconditioning (IPC) versus a deceptive sham protocol on indirect markers of exercise-induced muscle damage (EIMD) after the application of individualized occlusion pressure were examined. The goal of using a sham protocol is to control for the potential effect of placebo.

HYPOTHESIS

IPC would surpass the sham protocol in protecting against EIMD.

STUDY DESIGN

A randomized, double-blinded, clinical trial.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 1.

METHODS

Thirty healthy young men were randomly assigned to an eccentric exercise for the knee extensor muscles preceded by IPC (4 × 5 minutes of individualized total occlusion pressure) or sham protocol (4 × 5 minutes using 20 mm Hg). Maximal voluntary isometric torque (MVIT), rate of torque development, muscle soreness, pressure pain threshold, knee range of motion, thigh girth, and creatine kinase (CK) activity were assessed before IPC or sham protocol and up to 72 hours after the eccentric EIMD. Affective valence and perceived exertion were also evaluated.

RESULTS

MVIT decreased 17.1% in the IPC and 18.1% in the sham groups, with no differences between groups. Differences from baseline were observed in the sham group for muscle soreness at 48 hours (P < 0.001) and 72 hours (P = 0.02), and for CK activity at 72 hours (P = 0.04). Muscle soreness was reduced in the IPC group at 48 hours compared with the sham group (∆ = 15.8 mm; P = 0.008) but without achieving the minimal clinically important difference. IPC induced a smaller perceived exertion than the sham protocol (∆ = 1.1 a.u.; P = 0.02). The remaining outcomes were not statistically different in both groups.

CONCLUSION

IPC does not surpass the sham protocol to protect against mild EIMD of the knee extensors muscles.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Although IPC is a noninvasive, low-cost, and easy-to-administer intervention, the IPC effects can, in part, be explained by the placebo effect. In addition, individualized IPC promotes attenuation in perceived exertion during eccentric exercise.

Validity of the Handheld Doppler to Determine Lower-Limb Blood Flow Restriction Pressure for Exercise Protocols

Laurentino, GC, Loenneke, JP, Mouser, JG, Buckner, SL, Counts, BR, Dankel, SJ, Jessee, MB, Mattocks, KT, Iared, W, Tavares, LD, Teixeira, EL, and Tricoli, V. Validity of the handheld Doppler to determine lower-limb blood flow restriction pressure for exercise protocols. J Strength Cond Res 34(9): 2693-2696, 2020-Handheld (HH) Doppler is frequently used for determining the arterial occlusion pressure during blood flow restriction exercises; however, it is unknown whether the blood flow is occluded when the auscultatory signal is no longer present. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity between the HH Doppler and the Doppler ultrasound (US) measurements for determining the arterial occlusion pressure in healthy men. Thirty-five participants underwent 2 arterial occlusion pressure measurements. In the first measure, a pressure cuff (17.5 cm wide) was placed at the most proximal region of the thigh and the pulse of posterior tibial artery was detected using an HH Doppler probe. The cuff was inflated until the auscultatory pulse was no longer detected. After 10 minutes of rest, the procedure was repeated with the Doppler US probe placed on the superficial femoral artery. The cuff was inflated up to the point at which the femoral arterial blood flow was interrupted. The point at which the auscultatory pulse and blood flow were no longer detected was deemed the arterial occlusion pressure. There were no significant differences in arterial occlusion pressure level between the HH Doppler and the Doppler US (133 [±18] vs. 135 [±17] mm Hg, p = 0.168). There was a significant correlation (r = 0.938, p = 0.168), reasonable agreement, and a total error of the estimate of 6.0 mm Hg between measurements. Arterial occlusion pressure level determined by the HH Doppler and the Doppler US was similar, providing evidence that the HH Doppler is a valid and practical method.

Limb occlusion pressure for blood flow restricted exercise: Variability and relations with participant characteristics

OBJECTIVE

Assess lower-extremity blood flow restricted exercise (BFR) limb occlusion pressure (LOP) variability and identify related intrinsic characteristics using a portable Delphi BFR system.

DESIGN

Repeated measures.

SETTING

Laboratory.

PARTICIPANTS

Forty-two healthy males (n = 25) and females (n = 17) (25.8 ± 5.2 y, 1.76 ±0 .09 m, 78.9 ± 14.9 kg) completed two visits. Brachial artery blood pressure, thigh circumferences (TC), and LOP were measured supine.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Linear mixed-effects models (LMM) and generalizability theory were used to evaluate LOP between legs and days, determine intrinsic characteristic relations, and assess random variance components.

RESULTS

LOP was not different between legs (p = .730) or days (p = .916; grand mean = 183.7 mmHg [178.4, 189.1]). LOP varied significantly between participants (p = .011, standard error = 47.3 mmHg). 47% of LOP variance was between participants, 18% and 6% was within participants between days and legs, respectively, and 28% was associated with random error. The relative error variance was 14.4 mmHg. Pulse pressure (PP) (p = .005) and TC (p = .040) were positively associated with LOP. A LMM including PP and TC predicted LOP with a mean absolute difference of 11.1 mmHg [9.7, 12.6] compared to measured LOP.

CONCLUSIONS

The relative error variance suggests that clinicians should measure LOP consistently for each patient to ensure BFR safety and effectiveness.

Determining the Arterial Occlusion Pressure for Blood Flow Restriction: Pulse Oximeter as a New Method Compared With a Handheld Doppler

Lima-Soares, F, Pessoa, KA, Torres Cabido, CE, Lauver, J, Cholewa, J, Rossi, FE, and Zanchi, NE. Determining the arterial occlusion pressure for blood flow restriction: pulse oximeter as a new method compared with a handheld Doppler. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2020-In laboratorial and clinical settings, the use of Doppler ultrasound equipment has been considered the gold standard method to determine arterial occlusion pressure (AOP). However, the use of Doppler equipment is inherently limited to the technical expertise needed to perform AOP measurements. To overcome the technical difficulties of the use of Doppler equipment use in the determination of AOP, a simpler and less subjective methodology would be helpful for blood flow restriction (BFR) practitioners. In this regard, portable pulse oximetry has been largely used in clinical practice for measuring systolic pressures, as well as loss or recovery of pulse, with results similar to those observed with the use of Doppler equipment. For such purposes, the AOP from young male and female subjects was evaluated after different body positions (standing, seated, and supine positions). Loss of capillary blood flow or AOP was readily determined by simple visual inspection for the pulse oximeter and loss of sound for the Doppler equipment. The results presented herein strongly suggest the use of the portable pulse oximetry equipment as reliable, when compared with the handheld Doppler (seated K = 0.962, standing K = 0.845, and supine K = 0.963 and seated rs = 0.980, standing rs = 0.958, and supine rs = 0.955). Because AOP measurement by pulse oximetry is relatively easier to perform and financially more accessible than handheld Doppler equipment, BFR practitioners may benefit from this new methodology to measure AOP, thus determining individualized restriction pressures.

Perioperative Blood Flow Restriction Rehabilitation in Patients Undergoing ACL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

Background:

Low-load blood flow restriction (BFR) training has attracted attention as a potentially effective method of perioperative clinical rehabilitation for patients undergoing orthopaedic procedures.

Purpose:

To (1) compare the effectiveness of low-load BFR training in conjunction with a standard rehabilitation protocol, pre- and postoperatively, and non-BFR interventions in patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and (2) evaluate protocols for implementing BFR perioperatively for patients undergoing ACLR.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2.

Methods:

A systematic review of the 3 medical literature databases was conducted to identify all level 1 and 2 clinical trials published since 1990 on BFR in patients undergoing ACLR. Patient demographics from included studies were pooled. Outcome data were documented, including muscle strength and size, and perceived pain and exertion. A descriptive analysis of outcomes from BFR and non-BFR interventions was performed.

Results:

A total of 6 studies (154 patients; 66.2% male; mean ± SD age, 24.2 ± 3.68 years) were included. Of these, 2 studies examined low-load BFR as a preoperative intervention, 1 of which observed a significant increase in muscle isometric endurance (P = .014), surface electromyography of the vastus medialis (P < .001), and muscle blood flow to the vastus lateralis at final follow-up (P < .001) as compared with patients undergoing sham BFR. Four studies investigated low-load BFR as a postoperative intervention, and they observed significant benefits in muscle hypertrophy, as measured by cross-sectional area; strength, as measured by extensor torque; and subjective outcomes, as measured by subjective knee pain during session, over traditional low-load resistance training (all P < .05). BFR occlusion periods ranged from 3 to 5 minutes, with rest periods ranging from 45 seconds to 3 minutes.

Conclusion:

This systematic review found evidence on the topic of BFR rehabilitation after ACLR to be sparse and heterogeneous likely because of the relatively recent onset of its popularity. While a few authors have demonstrated the potential strength and hypertrophy benefits of perioperative BFR, future investigations with standardized outcomes, long-term follow-up, and more robust sample sizes are required to draw more definitive conclusions.

Effects of blood flow restriction exercise with very low load and low volume in patients with knee osteoarthritis: protocol for a randomized trial

Background

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is characterized by chronic pain, physical dysfunction, and reduced quality of life. Low-load resistance exercises with blood flow restriction (BFR) have presented results similar to those of high-intensity resistance exercise (HIRE) without BFR provided that the exercise volume in both is paired. However, it is unclear whether BFR exercise with reduced load and volume generates clinical improvements similar to those of HIRE. The aim of the proposed study is to evaluate the effects of BFR resistance exercise with very low load and low volume against HIRE in patients with knee OA for the outcomes of knee pain, muscle performance, physical function, disease severity, quality of life, perceived exertion during the exercises, adherence, and patient satisfaction with treatment.

Methods

This two-arm, prospectively registered, randomized controlled trial with blinded assessors and volunteers will involve 40 patients with knee OA. Two weekly treatment sessions will be provided for 12 weeks. Patients will perform very low-load (10% of 1-RM) and low-volume BFR exercise or HIRE (60% of 1-RM) for strengthening thigh muscles. The primary outcome will be the knee pain measured after 12 weeks of treatment. The secondary outcomes include knee pain 6 months after randomization, physical function, disease severity, quality of life, muscle performance, knee pain and perceived exertion during exercise, adherence, and patient satisfaction with treatment.

Discussion

If the improvements in the outcomes are similar in the two groups, BFR exercise with reduced load and volume may be an interesting alternative in the treatment of knee OA, especially when exercises with high loads generate joint pain.

Trial registration

Registro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clínicos (REBEC), RBR-6pcrfm. Registered on July 10, 2018.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3238-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Influence and reliability of lower-limb arterial occlusion pressure at different body positions

Background

Total arterial occlusive pressure (AOP) is used to prescribe pressures for surgery, blood flow restriction exercise (BFRE) and ischemic preconditioning (IPC). AOP is often measured in a supine position; however, the influence of body position on AOP measurement is unknown and may influence level of occlusion in different positions during BFR and IPC. The aim of this study was therefore to investigate the influence of body position on AOP.

Methods

Fifty healthy individuals (age = 29 ± 6 y) underwent AOP measurements on the dominant lower-limb in supine, seated and standing positions in a randomised order. AOP was measured automatically using the Delfi Personalised Tourniquet System device, with each measurement separated by 5 min of rest.

Results

Arterial occlusive pressure was significantly lower in the supine position compared to the seated position (187.00 ± 32.5 vs 204.00 ± 28.5 mmHg, p < 0.001) and standing position (187.00 ± 32.5 vs 241.50 ± 49.3 mmHg, p < 0.001). AOP was significantly higher in the standing position compared to the seated position (241.50 ± 49.3 vs 204.00 ± 28.5 mmHg, p < 0.001).

Discussion

Arterial occlusive pressure measurement is body position dependent, thus for accurate prescription of occlusion pressure during surgery, BFR and IPC, AOP should be measured in the position intended for subsequent application of occlusion.