Acute Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation (NMES) With Blood Flow Restriction: The Effect of Restriction Pressures

Effects of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation Waveforms and Occlusion Pressures on Elicited Force and Microvascular Oxygenation

CONTEXT

Interest in the effects of concurrently using neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) and blood flow restriction (BFR) to improve muscle strength has risen, but limited studies and inconsistent findings have led to more questions. The 2 current projects aimed to systematically investigate how NMES waveform shape and BFR occlusion pressure acutely influence electrically elicited force (EEF) and tissue oxygen saturation (StO2) of the knee extensors.

DESIGN

A single-session repeated-measures design was followed.

METHODS

EEF and StO2 were measured in 2 different groups of 15 participants during 3 sets of NMES contractions. Ten NMES contractions per set were performed with 5 minutes of passive interset recovery. In the first project, different NMES waveforms (RUS, Russian burst-modulated alternating current; VMS, biphasic pulsed current; and VMS-Burst, burst-modulated biphasic pulsed current) were administered for each set, while BFR was applied at 60% limb occlusion pressure (LOP). During the second projet, VMS was administered, while a different BFR occlusion pressure (0% LOP, 40% LOP, and 80% LOP) was used during each set. Two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance examined if repetition and/or NMES waveform (first project) or BFR occlusion pressure (second project) significantly affected (P < .05) EEF or StO2.

RESULTS

VMS (12% [7%] MVIF) and VMS-Burst (13% [10%] MVIF) led to higher EFF compared with RUS (6% [5%] MVIF) with 60% LOP; 80% LOP (20% [14%] MVIF) led to lower EEF compared with 0% LOP (29% [17%] MVIF) with VMS. No significant differences in StO2 were observed between NMES waveforms or BFR occlusion pressures.

CONCLUSIONS

If a clinician wanted to concurrently use NMES and BFR, the acute findings of the current projects would suggest the use of VMS or VMS-Burst with lower BFR occlusion pressure (40% LOP). However, further investigation into how these parameters would influence muscle strength subsequent to a training/rehabilitation intervention should be performed.

The Discrepancy Between External and Internal Load/Intensity during Blood Flow Restriction Exercise: Understanding Blood Flow Restriction Pressure as Modulating Factor

Physical exercise induces acute psychophysiological responses leading to chronic adaptations when the exercise stimulus is applied repeatedly, at sufficient time periods, and with appropriate magnitude. To maximize long-term training adaptations, it is crucial to control and manipulate the external load and the resulting psychophysiological strain. Therefore, scientists have developed a theoretical framework that distinguishes between the physical work performed during exercise (i.e., external load/intensity) and indicators of the body's psychophysiological response (i.e., internal load/intensity). However, the application of blood flow restriction (BFR) during exercise with low external loads/intensities (e.g., ≤ 30% of the one-repetition-maximum, ≤ 50% of maximum oxygen uptake) can induce physiological and perceptual responses, which are commonly associated with high external loads/intensities. This current opinion aimed to emphasize the mismatch between external and internal load/intensity when BFR is applied during exercise. In this regard, there is evidence that BFR can be used to manipulate both external load/intensity (by reducing total work when exercise is performed to exhaustion) and internal load/intensity (by leading to higher physiological and perceptual responses compared to exercise performed with the same external load/intensity without BFR). Furthermore, it is proposed to consider BFR as an additional exercise determinant, given that the amount of BFR pressure can determine not only the internal but also external load/intensity. Finally, terminological recommendations for the use of the proposed terms in the scientific context and for practitioners are given, which should be considered when designing, reporting, discussing, and presenting BFR studies, exercise, and/or training programs.

Where Does Blood Flow Restriction Fit in the Toolbox of Athletic Development? A Narrative Review of the Proposed Mechanisms and Potential Applications

Blood flow-restricted exercise is currently used as a low-intensity time-efficient approach to reap many of the benefits of typical high-intensity training. Evidence continues to lend support to the notion that even highly trained individuals, such as athletes, still benefit from this mode of training. Both resistance and endurance exercise may be combined with blood flow restriction to provide a spectrum of adaptations in skeletal muscle, spanning from myofibrillar to mitochondrial adjustments. Such diverse adaptations would benefit both muscular strength and endurance qualities concurrently, which are demanded in athletic performance, most notably in team sports. Moreover, recent work indicates that when traditional high-load resistance training is supplemented with low-load, blood flow-restricted exercise, either in the same session or as a separate training block in a periodised programme, a synergistic and complementary effect on training adaptations may occur. Transient reductions in mechanical loading of tissues afforded by low-load, blood flow-restricted exercise may also serve a purpose during de-loading, tapering or rehabilitation of musculoskeletal injury. This narrative review aims to expand on the current scientific and practical understanding of how blood flow restriction methods may be applied by coaches and practitioners to enhance current athletic development models.

The effect of blood flow restriction training combined with electrical muscle stimulation on neuromuscular adaptation: a randomized controlled trial

Objective: Low-intensity resistance training (≤25% 1RM) combined with blood flow restriction training (BFRT) is beneficial to increasing muscle mass and muscle strength, but it cannot produce increased muscle activation and neuromuscular adaptation, as traditional high-intensity strength training does. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of independently applying BFRT and electrical muscle stimulation (EMS), as well as combining the two methods, on muscle function. Methods: Forty healthy participants with irregular exercise experiences were randomly assigned to four groups: BFRT-alone group (BFRT, n = 10), EMS-alone group (EMS, n = 10), BFRT combined with EMS group (CMB, n = 10), and the control group (CTR, n = 10). All participants received low-intensity squat training at a load of 25% 1RM 5 times/week for 6 weeks. Cross-sectional area (CSA) and electromyographic root mean square (RMS) in the rectus femoris, as well as peak torque (PT) of the knee extensor, were measured before and following a 6-week intervention. Results: Following the 6-week intervention, the increases in muscle activation in the CMB group were statistically higher than those in the BFRT group (p < 0.001), but not different from those in the EMS group (p = 0.986). Conclusion: These data suggest that the combination of BFRT and EMS for low-intensity squat training improved the muscle strength of the lower limbs by promoting muscle hypertrophy and improving muscle activation, likely because such a combination compensates for the limitations and deficiencies of the two intervention methods when applied alone.

The impact of blood flow restricted electrical stimulations on recovery from muscle damage

BACKGROUND

Both electrical stimulations (E-STIM) and blood flow restriction (BFR) have been shown to treat symptoms of exercise-induced muscle damage, but little is known about their combined effects which was the purpose of this study.

METHODS

Individuals completed one set of eccentric elbow flexion exercises to induce muscle damage. Forty-eight hours later, E-STIM was applied using an interferential current administered to both arms for 20 min; however, only one arm completed the E-STIM protocol while also undergoing repeated bouts of BFR (full occlusion for 2 min separated by a 1-min rest intervals). Discomfort and isometric strength were assessed immediately before the damaging exercise, immediately before the treatments, and 0, 10, and 30 min posttreatment.

RESULTS

A total of 22 individuals (11 females) completed the study. There were no interactions with respect to discomfort (BF₁₀  = 0.008) or isometric strength (BF₁₀  = 0.009) indicating that the addition of BFR did not alter the effectiveness of E-STIM. There was a main effect of time indicating that the damaging exercise was successful at depressing torque (pre: 284 N, post: 199 N; BF₁₀  = 2.70e9) and inducing discomfort (pre: 0 au, post: 6.4 au; BF₁₀  = 3.21e17). While isometric strength did not recover with the E-STIM treatments, discomfort was reduced at each the immediate post (5.3 au; BF₁₀  = 56 294) 10-min post (5.0 au; BF₁₀  = 46 163), and 30-min post (4.9 au; BF₁₀  = 707 600) time points.

CONCLUSION

E-STIM may be useful for treating discomfort, but does not appear capable of recovering strength associated with muscle damage. The efficacy of E-STIM would not appear to be enhanced if performed under BFR.

Acute effects of electrostimulation and blood flow restriction on muscle thickness and fatigue in the lower body

AbstractNeuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) in combination with blood flow restriction (BFR) enhances muscle hypertrophy and force-generating capacity. The present study aimed to investigate the acute effects of BFR and NMES, both in isolation and in combination, on muscle thickness (MT) and fatigue in the lower body of 20 young healthy subjects. Different stimuli were applied for 25 min, defined by the combination of BFR with high- and low-frequency NMES, and also isolated BFR or NMES. Changes in MT were then evaluated by ultrasound of the rectus femoris (RF) and vastus lateralis (VL) muscles at the end of the session (POST) and 15 min later (POST 15'). Lower limb fatigue was evaluated indirectly by strength performance. Results showed that RF MT was higher under the combined protocol (BFR+NMES) or isolated BFR than under NMES - regardless of the frequency - both at POST (p ≤ 0.018) and POST 15' (p ≤ 0.016). No significant changes in MT were observed under isolated NMES or BFR at POST 15' when compared with basal values (p ≥ 0.067). No significant differences were observed for VL MT between conditions (p = 0.322) or for fatigue between conditions (p ≥ 0.258). Our results indicate that a combination of BFR and NMES acutely increases MT in sedentary subjects. Also, although not significantly, BFR conditions had a greater tendency to induce fatigue than isolated NMES.

Safety and Feasibility Assessment of Repetitive Vascular Occlusion Stimulus (RVOS) Application to Multi-Organ Failure Critically Ill Patients: A Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial

Muscle wasting is implicated in the pathogenesis of intensive care unit acquired weakness (ICU-AW), affecting 40% of patients and causing long-term physical disability. A repetitive vascular occlusion stimulus (RVOS) limits muscle atrophy in healthy and orthopaedic subjects, thus, we explored its application to ICU patients. Adult multi-organ failure patients received standard care +/- twice daily RVOS {4 cycles of 5 min tourniquet inflation to 50 mmHg supra-systolic blood pressure, and 5 min complete deflation} for 10 days. Serious adverse events (SAEs), tolerability, feasibility, acceptability, and exploratory outcomes of the rectus femoris cross-sectional area (RFCSA), echogenicity, clinical outcomes, and blood biomarkers were assessed. Only 12 of the intended 32 participants were recruited. RVOS sessions (76.1%) were delivered to five participants and two could not tolerate it. No SAEs occurred; 75% of participants and 82% of clinical staff strongly agreed or agreed that RVOS is an acceptable treatment. RFCSA fell significantly and echogenicity increased in controls (n = 5) and intervention subjects (n = 4). The intervention group was associated with less frequent acute kidney injury (AKI), a greater decrease in the total sequential organ failure assessment score (SOFA) score, and increased insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), and reduced syndecan-1, interleukin-4 (IL-4) and Tumor necrosis factor receptor type II (TNF-RII) levels. RVOS application appears safe and acceptable, but protocol modifications are required to improve tolerability and recruitment. There were signals of possible clinical benefit relating to RVOS application.

Blood flow restriction and stimulated muscle contractions do not improve metabolic or vascular outcomes following glucose ingestion in young, active individuals

Glucose ingestion and absorption into the blood stream can challenge glycemic regulation and vascular endothelial function. Muscular contractions in exercise promote a return to homeostasis by increasing glucose uptake and blood flow. Similarly, muscle hypoxia supports glycemic regulation by increasing glucose oxidation. Blood flow restriction (BFR) induces muscle hypoxia during occlusion and reactive hyperemia upon release. Thus, in the absence of exercise, electric muscle stimulation (EMS) and BFR may offer circulatory and glucoregulatory improvements. In 13 healthy, active participants (27±3yr, 7 female) we tracked post-glucose (oral 100g) glycemic, cardiometabolic and vascular function measures over 120min following four interventions: 1) BFR, 2) EMS, 3) BFR+EMS or 4) Control. BFR was applied at 2min intervals for 30min (70% occlusion), EMS was continuous for 30min (maximum-tolerable intensity). Glycemic and insulinemic responses did not differ between interventions (partial η2=0.11-0.15, P=0.2); however, only BFR+EMS demonstrated cyclic effects on oxygen consumption, carbohydrate oxidation, muscle oxygenation, heart rate, and blood pressure (all P<0.01). Endothelial function was reduced 60min post-glucose ingestion across interventions and recovered by 120min (5.9±2.6% vs 8.4±2.7%; P<0.001). Estimated microvascular function was not meaningfully different. Leg blood flow increased during EMS and BFR+EMS (+656±519mL•min-1, +433±510mL•min-1; P<0.001); however, only remained elevated following BFR intervention 90min post-glucose (+94±94mL•min-1; P=0.02). Superimposition of EMS onto cyclic BFR did not preferentially improve post-glucose metabolic or vascular function amongst young, active participants. Cyclic BFR increased blood flow delivery 60min beyond intervention, and BFR+EMS selectively increased carbohydrate usage and reduced muscle oxygenation warranting future clinical assessments.

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.

Effects of Blood Flow Restriction Combined With Resistance Training or Neuromuscular Electrostimulation on Muscle Cross-Sectional Area

CONTEXT

Low-load resistance training (LL) and neuromuscular electrostimulation (NES), both combined with blood flow restriction (BFR), emerge as effective strategies to maintain or increase muscle mass. It is well established that LL-BFR promotes similar increases in muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) and lower rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and pain compared with traditional resistance training protocols. On the other hand, only 2 studies with conflicting results have investigated the effects of NES-BFR on CSA, RPE, and pain. In addition, no study directly compared LL-BFR and NES-BFR.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare the effects of LL-BFR and NES-BFR on vastus lateralis CSA, RPE, and pain. Individual response for muscle hypertrophy was also compared between protocols.

DESIGN

Intrasubject longitudinal study.

SETTING

University research laboratory.

INTERVENTION

Fifteen healthy young males (age = 23 [5] y; weight = 77.6 [11.3] kg; height = 1.76 [0.08] m).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Vastus lateralis CSA was measured through ultrasound at baseline (pre) and after 20 training sessions (post). The RPE and pain responses were obtained through modified 10-point scales, handled during all training sessions.

RESULTS

Both protocols demonstrated significant increases in muscle CSA (P < .0001). However, the LL-BFR demonstrated significantly greater CSA changes compared with NES-BFR (LL-BFR = 11.2%, NES-BFR = 4.6%; P < .0001). Comparing individual increases in CSA, 12 subjects (85.7% of the sample) presented greater muscle hypertrophy for LL-BFR than for the NES-BFR protocol. In addition, LL-BFR produced significantly lower RPE and pain responses (P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The LL-BFR produced significantly greater increases in CSA with significant less RPE and pain than NES-BFR. In addition, LL-BFR resulted in greater individual muscle hypertrophy responses for most subjects compared with NES-BFR.

Current Clinical Concepts: Blood Flow Restriction Training

Muscle weakness and atrophy are common impairments following musculoskeletal injury. The use of blood flow restriction (BFR) training offers the ability to mitigate weakness and atrophy without overloading healing tissues. This approach requires consideration of a wide range of parameters and the purpose of this manuscript is to provide insights into proposed mechanisms of effectiveness, safety considerations, application guidelines, and clinical guidelines for BFR training following musculoskeletal injury. BFR training appears to be a safe and effective approach to therapeutic exercise in sports medicine environments. While training with higher loads produces the most substantial increases in strength and hypertrophy, BFR training appears to be a reasonable option to bridge between earlier phases of rehabilitation when higher loads may not be tolerated by the patient and later stages that are consistent with return to sport performance.