Low-intensity kaatsu resistance exercises using an elastic band enhance muscle activation in patients with cardiovascular diseases

Blood flow restriction as a potential therapy to restore physical function following COVID-19 infection

Accumulating evidence indicates that some COVID-19 survivors display reduced muscle mass, muscle strength, and aerobic capacity, which contribute to impairments in physical function that can persist for months after the acute phase of illness. Accordingly, strategies to restore muscle mass, muscle strength, and aerobic capacity following infection are critical to mitigate the long-term consequences of COVID-19. Blood flow restriction (BFR), which involves the application of mechanical compression to the limbs, presents a promising therapy that could be utilized throughout different phases of COVID-19 illness. Specifically, we hypothesize that: 1) use of passive BFR modalities can mitigate losses of muscle mass and muscle strength that occur during acute infection and 2) exercise with BFR can serve as an effective alternative to high-intensity exercise without BFR for regaining muscle mass, muscle strength, and aerobic capacity during convalescence. The various applications of BFR may also serve as a targeted therapy to address the underlying pathophysiology of COVID-19 and provide benefits to the musculoskeletal system as well as other organ systems affected by the disease. Consequently, we present a theoretical framework with which BFR could be implemented throughout the progression from acute illness to outpatient rehabilitation with the goal of improving short- and long-term outcomes in COVID-19 survivors. We envision that this paper will encourage discussion and consideration among researchers and clinicians of the potential therapeutic benefits of BFR to treat not only COVID-19 but similar pathologies and cases of acute critical illness.

Beneficial Role of Blood Flow Restriction Exercise in Heart Disease and Heart Failure Using the Muscle Hypothesis of Chronic Heart Failure and a Growing Literature

Background: Blood flow restriction exercise (BFRE) has become a common method to increase skeletal muscle strength and hypertrophy for individuals with a variety of conditions. A substantial literature of BFRE in older adults exists in which significant gains in strength and functional performance have been observed without report of adverse events. Research examining the effects of BFRE in heart disease (HD) and heart failure (HF) appears to be increasing for which reason the Muscle Hypothesis of Chronic Heart Failure (MHCHF) will be used to fully elucidate the effects BFRE may have in patients with HD and HF highlighted in the MHCHF.

Methods: A comprehensive literature review was performed in PubMed and the Cochrane library through February 2022. Inclusion criteria were: 1) the study was original research conducted in human subjects older than 18 years of age and diagnosed with either HD or HF, 2) study participants performed BFRE, and 3) post-intervention outcome measures of cardiovascular function, physical performance, skeletal muscle function and structure, and/or systemic biomarkers were provided. Exclusion criteria included review articles and articles on viewpoints and opinions of BFRE, book chapters, theses, dissertations, and case study articles.

Results: Seven BFRE studies in HD and two BFRE studies in HF were found of which four of the HD and the two HF studies examined a variety of measures reflected within the MHCHF over a period of 8–24 weeks. No adverse events were reported in any of the studies and significant improvements in skeletal muscle strength, endurance, and work as well as cardiorespiratory performance, mitochondrial function, exercise tolerance, functional performance, immune humoral function, and possibly cardiac performance were observed in one or more of the reviewed studies.

Conclusion: In view of the above systematic review, BFRE has been performed safely with no report of adverse event in patients with a variety of different types of HD and in patients with HF. The components of the MHCHF that can be potentially improved with BFRE include left ventricular dysfunction, inflammatory markers, inactivity, a catabolic state, skeletal and possibly respiratory muscle myopathy, dyspnea and fatigue, ANS activity, and peripheral blood flow. Furthermore, investigation of feasibility, acceptability, adherence, adverse effects, and symptoms during and after BFRE is needed since very few studies have examined these important issues comprehensively in patients with HD and HF.

Effectiveness of Resistance Training and Associated Program Characteristics in Patients at Risk for Type 2 Diabetes: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Resistance training (RT) is an effective intervention for glycemic control and cardiometabolic health in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, the use of RT in individuals at risk for T2D to prevent or delay the onset of T2D, and RT program characteristics that are most effective are still unknown. The purpose of this review is to determine the effects of RT on cardiometabolic risk factors in those at risk for T2D and to examine RT program characteristics associated with intervention effectiveness.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Embase databases were systematically searched for published controlled trials that compared cardiometabolic outcomes in adults with cardiometabolic risk for those that underwent an RT intervention with those that did not. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine the effect of RT on glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), body fat percentage (BF%), total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein (HDL), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), and triglycerides (TG). Additional analyses examined effects of intervention duration and dietary intervention on FPG and TG.

RESULTS

Fourteen trials with 668 participants were included. For RT compared to controls, the standardized mean difference (SMD) was -1.064 for HbA1c (95% confidence interval [CI] -1.802 to -0.327; p=0.005), -0.99 for FPG (95% CI -1.798 to -0.183; p=0.016), -0.933 for TC (95% CI -1.66 to -0.206; p=0.012), -0.840 for BF% (95% CI -1.429 to -0.251; p=0.005), -0.693 for HDL (95% CI -1.230 to -0.156; p=0.011), -1.03 for LDL (95% CI -2.03 to -0.050; p=0.039), and -0.705 for TG (95% CI -1.132 to -0.279; p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

RT is beneficial for improving glycemic control, BF%, and blood lipids in those at risk for diabetes. The addition of a dietary component did not result in larger reductions in FPG and TG than RT alone.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION ID

CRD42019122217.

Hemodynamic and Hemostatic Response to Blood Flow Restriction Resistance Exercise in Coronary Artery Disease: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Blood flow-restricted resistance training (BFR-RT) has been proven to be safe and efficacious in healthy older adults, but not in cardiovascular disease.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the acute and training induced effects of BFR-RT on hemostatic and hemodynamic responses in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD).

METHODS

Stable patients with CAD were randomized to 8 weeks of BFR-RT (30%-40% 1-repetition maximum unilateral knee extension) combined with aerobic training or aerobic training alone (control group). At baseline and after 4 and 8 weeks, blood samples were taken before and after BFR exercise, whereas hemodynamic parameters were monitored throughout the exercise.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients (12 per group; mean age, 60 ± 2 years; mostly male [75%]) completed the study. The BFR-RT significantly improved systolic blood pressure (-10 mm Hg; P = .020) and tended to lower diastolic blood pressure (-2 mm Hg; P = .066). In contrast, no posttraining alterations were observed in N-terminal prohormone B-type natriuretic hormone, fibrinogen, and D-dimer values. During BFR exercise, all hemodynamic variables significantly increased after the first and second set, whereas blood pressure immediately lowered after the cuff was released in the third set. Last, significant interaction was only observed for repetitions × intensity (P < .001; partial η2 = 0.908) of diastolic blood pressure at higher exercise intensity (40% 1-repetition maximum).

CONCLUSIONS

The BFR-RT was proven to be safe, with favorable hemodynamic and hemostatic responses in patients with CAD, and can be recommended as an additional exercise modality in cardiac rehabilitation.Trial Registration:ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier: NCT03087292.

Does Blood Flow Restriction Therapy in Patients Older Than Age 50 Result in Muscle Hypertrophy, Increased Strength, or Greater Physical Function? A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Blood flow restriction (BFR) is a process of using inflatable cuffs to create vascular occlusion within a limb during exercise. The technique can stimulate muscle hypertrophy and improve physical function; however, most of these studies have enrolled healthy, young men with a focus on athletic performance. Furthermore, much of the information on BFR comes from studies with small samples sizes, limited follow-up time, and varied research designs resulting in greater design, selection, and sampling bias. Despite these limitations, BFR's popularity is increasing as a clinical rehabilitation tool for aging patients. It is important for practitioners to have a clear understanding of the reported effects of BFR specifically in older adults while simultaneously critically evaluating the available literature before deciding to employ the technique.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Does BFR induce skeletal muscle hypertrophy in adults older than 50 years of age? (2) Does BFR improve muscle strength and/or physical function in adults older than 50 years?

METHODS

Using PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Science Direct, we conducted a systematic review of articles using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to assess the reported effects of BFR on skeletal muscle in older adults. Included articles enrolled participants 50 years of age or older and used BFR in conjunction with exercise to study the effects of BFR on musculoskeletal outcomes and functionality. The following search terms were used: "blood flow restriction" OR "KAATSU" OR "ischemic training" AND "clinical" AND "elderly." After duplicates were removed, 1574 articles were reviewed for eligibility, and 30 articles were retained with interventions duration ranging from cross-sectional to 16 weeks. Sample sizes ranged from 6 to 56 participants, and exercise tasks included passive mobilization or electrical stimulation; walking; resistance training using machines, free weights, body weight, or elastic bands; and water-based activities. Furthermore, healthy participants and those with cardiovascular disease, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, sporadic inclusion body myositis, spinal cord injuries, and current coma patients were studied. Lastly, retained articles were assigned a risk of bias score using aspects of the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials.

RESULTS

BFR, in combination with a variety of exercises, was found to result in muscle hypertrophy as measured by muscle cross-sectional area, thickness, volume, mass, or circumference. Effect sizes for BFR's ability to induce muscle hypertrophy were calculated for 16 of the 30 papers and averaged 0.75. BFR was also shown to improve muscle strength and functional performance. Effect sizes were calculated for 21 of the 30 papers averaging 1.15.

CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence suggests BFR may demonstrate utility in aiding rehabilitation efforts in adults older than 50 years of age, especially for inducing muscle hypertrophy, combating muscle atrophy, increasing muscle strength, and improving muscle function. However, most studies in this systematic review were at moderate or high risk of bias; that being so, the findings in this systematic review should be confirmed, ideally using greater sample sizes, randomization of participants, and extended follow-up durations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, systematic review.