Intermittent blood flow restriction with low-load resistance training for older adults with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial protocol

BACKGROUND

Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a chronic musculoskeletal disorder characterized by pain and functional impairment. Blood flow restriction (BFR) with low-load resistance training (LLRT) demonstrates a similar improvement in clinical outcomes to high-load resistance training (HLRT) in treating KOA. It has not been established whether intermittent blood flow restriction (iBFR) with LLRT can lead to clinical outcomes that are comparable to those produced by continuous blood flow restriction (cBFR) with LLRT and HLRT. The aim of the proposed study is to evaluate the efficacy of iBFR with LLRT on pain, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), muscle strength, muscle mass, physical function, perceptions of discomfort and effort, and adherence in KOA patients.

METHODS

This is a three-arm, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial utilizing blinded assessors. Two hundred thirteen participants will be randomly allocated to one of the following three groups: iBFR group-receiving 4 months of LLRT with iBFR, twice weekly (n = 71); cBFR group-receiving 4 months of LLRT with cBFR, twice weekly (n = 71); or HLRT group-receiving 4 months of HLRT without BFR, twice weekly (n = 71). The primary outcome is pain. The secondary outcomes include the WOMAC, muscle strength, muscle mass, physical function, perceptions of discomfort and effort, and adherence. Pain and WOMAC will be measured at the baseline and 4 and 12 months after randomizations. Muscle strength, muscle mass, and physical function will be measured at the baseline and 4 months after randomizations. The perceptions of discomfort and effort will be measured during the first and final sessions.

DISCUSSION

BFR with LLRT has a similar improvement in clinical outcomes as HLRT. However, cBFR may cause elevated ratings of perceived exertion and local discomfort, compromising patient tolerability and treatment adherence. If iBFR with LLRT could produce improvement in clinical outcomes analogous to those of HLRT and iBFR with LLRT, it could be considered an alternative approach for treating patients with KOA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2300072820. Registered on June 26, 2023.

Impact of Complete Intermittent Blood Flow Restriction in Upper Limbs Strength and Neural Function

Purpose: We aimed to investigate the chronic effects of low-load strength training (LT) with complete intermittent blood flow restriction (IBFR) on neural adaptations and strength in biceps brachii. Methods: Nineteen volunteers were randomly assigned into two different 9-week training protocols consisting of three assessment weeks and six training weeks: (a) LT with complete IBFR (LT-IBFR; n = 10) and (b) LT without complete IBFR (LT; n = 9). Strength was evaluated by predicted 1 repetition maximum (1RM) at weeks 1, 5, and 9 and neural function by root mean square (RMS) and median frequency (MDF) at sessions 1, 7, and 12 during the first three and last three repetitions. Both groups performed three sets of Scott curl with 20% of predicted 1RM interspersed with 90s rest twice a week. Results: No changes were found in predicted 1RM throughout the training protocols nor between groups. LT-IBFR group showed lower RMS in the first set than LT for the first three repetitions and higher RMS in all sets for the last three repetitions with decreases in this value across the sets with no longitudinal changes for both groups. MDF in the first three repetitions did not differentiate between groups, however, in the last three repetitions, MDF were lower for LTIBFR group in all sets and it increased across the sets for this condition with no chronical changes for both groups in both repetitions zones. These results suggest that LT-IBFR may be ineffective for increasing Q5 strength and it did not promote chronic neural adaptations.

Changes in Arterial Stiffness in Response to Blood Flow Restriction Resistance Training: A Narrative Review

Arterial stiffness naturally increases with age and is a known predictor of cardiovascular morbimortality. Blood flow restriction (BFR) training involves decreasing muscle blood flow by applying a strap or a pneumatic cuff during exercise. BFR induces muscle hypertrophy even at low intensities, making it an appealing option for older, untrained individuals. However, BFR use in patients with cardiovascular comorbidities is limited by the increased pressor and chronotropic response observed in hypertensive elderly patients. Furthermore, the impact of BFR on vascular function remains unclear. We conducted a comprehensive literature review according to PRISMA guidelines, summarizing available data on the acute and long-term consequences of BFR training on vascular function. Although evidence is still scarce, it seems that BFR has a mild or neutral long-term impact on arterial stiffness. However, current research shows that BFR can cause an abrupt, albeit transient, increase in PWV and central blood pressure. BFR and, preferably, lower-body BFR, should be prescribed with caution in older populations, especially in hypertensive patients who have an exacerbated muscle metaboreflex pressor response. Longer follow-up studies are required to assess the chronic effect of BFR training on arterial stiffness, especially in elderly patients who are usually unable to tolerate high-intensity resistance exercises.

Effects of low-load blood flow restriction exercise to failure and non-failure on myoelectric activity: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To compare the short- and long-term effects of low load blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) versus low- (LL-RT) or high-load (HL-RT) resistance training with free blood flow on myoelectric activity, and investigate the differences between failure and non-failure protocols.

DATA SOURCE

We identified sources by searching the MEDLINE/PUBMED, CINAHL, WEB OF SCIENCE, CENTRAL, SCOPUS, SPORTDiscus, and PEDro electronic databases.

STUDY SELECTION

We screened titles and abstracts of 1048 articles using our inclusion criteria. A total of 39 articles were selected for further analysis.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of each study and extracted data from studies. A meta-analytic approach was used to compute standardized mean differences (SMD ± 95% confidence intervals (CI)). Subgroup analyses were conducted for both failure or non-failure protocols.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The search identified n = 39 articles that met the inclusion criteria. Regarding the short-term effects, LL-BFR increased muscle excitability compared with LL-RT during non-failure exercises (SMD 0.61, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.88), whereas HL-RT increased muscle excitability compared with LL-BFR regardless of voluntary failure (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -1.01 to 0.21) or not (SMD -1.13, CI -1.94 to -0.33). Concerning the long-term effects, LL-BFR increased muscle excitability compared with LL-RT during exercises performed to failure (SMD 1.09, CI 0.39 to 1.79).

CONCLUSIONS

Greater short-term muscle excitability levels are observed in LL-BFR than LL-RT during non-failure protocols. Conversely, greater muscle excitability is present during HL-RT compared with LL-BFR, regardless of volitional failure. Furthermore, LL-BFR performed to failure increases muscle excitability in the long-term compared with LL-RT.

Low-intensity resistance exercise with blood flow restriction and arterial stiffness in humans: A systematic review

Low-intensity resistance exercise with blood flow restriction exercise is an emerging type of exercise recognition worldwide. This systematic review evaluated the effects of low-intensity resistance exercise performed with concurrent blood flow restriction (LIRE-BFR) on acute and chronic measures of arterial stiffness in humans. A systematic search in six healthcare science databases and reference lists was conducted. Data selected for primary analysis consisted of post-intervention changes in arterial stiffness markers. This systematic review included randomized and non-randomized controlled trials of LIRE-BFR in humans. 156 articles were initially identified, 15 of which met inclusion criteria. Ten studies were excluded because they did not match predefined arterial stiffness markers. Thus, five articles were included in this review: two acute studies (N = 39 individuals, age = 20-30 years old, 30.8% women and 69.2% men) and three longitudinal studies (N = 51 individuals, age = 24-86-years old, 41.2% women and 58.8% men). Acute LIRE-BFR demonstrated both positive and negative effects on arterial stiffness in healthy young people. In contrast, longitudinal studies reported neutral effects in healthy young and older people. In conclusion, LIRE-BFR applied to the upper and lower limbs may acutely induce increases in central blood pressure and pulse wave velocity in healthy young people, whereas LIRE-BFR for the lower limbs may elicit positive effects related to indirect markers of arterial stiffness. Moreover, longitudinal LIRE-BFR studies showed no changes in arterial stiffness in young and older people. Hence, LIRE-BFR should be prescribed with a degree of caution to avoid non-intended responses in arterial stiffness markers in humans.

The blood flow restriction training effect in knee osteoarthritis people: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective:

To synthesize evidence on the effects of blood flow restriction (BFR) comparing with high (HLT) and low load (LLT), and on the influence of different forms of application in individuals with knee osteoarthritis.

Data sources:

The CENTRAL, PEDro, PubMed and BVS, which include Lilacs, Medline and SciELO, until April 2020.

Review methods:

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials used the PRISMA guidelines, whose main keywords were: Therapeutic Occlusion, Resistance Training, and Knee Osteoarthritie, blood flow restriction and Kaatsu training. Method quality was evaluated with the PEDro scale. When studies demonstrated homogeneity on outcome measures, the mean differences or standardized mean differences with 95% confidence interval were calculated and pooled in a meta-analysis for pooled synthesis.

Results:

Five articles were eligible in this review with moderate to low risk bias. Our results, showed no difference between BFR and HLT in knee strength (SMD = 0.00, 95% CI, –0.54 to 0.54, P = 1.00), function (SMD = −0.20, 95% CI, –0.45 to 0.06, P = 0.13), pain and volume. But, when compared BFR and LLT, the descriptive analysis demonstrated significant results in favor BFR to muscle strength (71.4% of measurement) and volume (MD = 1.66, 95% CI, 0.93 to 2.38, P < 0.00001), but not in pain or function.

Conclusion:

BFR can be used as a strategy in the rehabilitation of osteoarthritis due to gains in strength and volume with low mechanical stress. However, its application must be safe and individualized, since they can attenuate the stimuli offered by BFR.