Cargando…
Application and side effects of blood flow restriction technique: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey of professionals
The physiological benefits of applying blood flow restriction (BFR) in isolation or in the presence of physical exercise have been widely documented in the scientific literature. Most investigations carried out under controlled laboratory conditions have found the technique to be safe. However, few...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8104249/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33950976 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000025794 |
_version_ | 1783689454664286208 |
---|---|
author | de Queiros, Victor Sabino Dantas, Matheus Neto, Gabriel Rodrigues da Silva, Luiz Felipe Assis, Marina Gonçalves Almeida-Neto, Paulo Francisco Dantas, Paulo Moreira Silva Cabral, Breno Guilherme de Araújo Tinôco |
author_facet | de Queiros, Victor Sabino Dantas, Matheus Neto, Gabriel Rodrigues da Silva, Luiz Felipe Assis, Marina Gonçalves Almeida-Neto, Paulo Francisco Dantas, Paulo Moreira Silva Cabral, Breno Guilherme de Araújo Tinôco |
author_sort | de Queiros, Victor Sabino |
collection | PubMed |
description | The physiological benefits of applying blood flow restriction (BFR) in isolation or in the presence of physical exercise have been widely documented in the scientific literature. Most investigations carried out under controlled laboratory conditions have found the technique to be safe. However, few studies have analyzed the use of the technique in clinical settings. To analyze how the BFR technique has been applied by professionals working in the clinical area and the prevalence of side effects (SEs) resulting from the use of this technique. This is a cross-sectional study. A total of 136 Brazilian professionals who perform some function related to physical rehabilitation, sports science, or physical conditioning participated in this study. Participants answered a self-administered online questionnaire consisting of 21 questions related to the professional profile and methodological aspects and SEs of the BFR technique. Professionals reported applying the BFR technique on individuals from different age groups from youth (≤18 years; 3.5%) to older adults (60–80 years; 30.7%), but mainly on people within the age group of 20 to 29 years (74.6%). A total of 99.1% of the professionals coupled the BFR technique with resistance exercise. Their main goals were muscle hypertrophy and physical rehabilitation. The majority (60.9%) of interviewees reported using BFR in durations of less than 5 minutes and the pressure used was mainly determined through the values of brachial blood pressure and arterial occlusion. Moreover, 92% of professionals declared observing at least 1 SE resulting from the BFR technique. Most professionals observed tingling (71.2%) and delayed onset of muscle soreness (55.8%). Rhabdomyolysis, fainting, and subcutaneous hemorrhaging were reported less frequently (1.9%, 3.8%, and 4.8%, respectively). Our findings indicate that the prescription of blood flow restriction technique results in minimal serious side effects when it is done in a proper clinical environment and follows the proposed recommendations found in relevant scientific literature. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8104249 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81042492021-05-10 Application and side effects of blood flow restriction technique: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey of professionals de Queiros, Victor Sabino Dantas, Matheus Neto, Gabriel Rodrigues da Silva, Luiz Felipe Assis, Marina Gonçalves Almeida-Neto, Paulo Francisco Dantas, Paulo Moreira Silva Cabral, Breno Guilherme de Araújo Tinôco Medicine (Baltimore) 6300 The physiological benefits of applying blood flow restriction (BFR) in isolation or in the presence of physical exercise have been widely documented in the scientific literature. Most investigations carried out under controlled laboratory conditions have found the technique to be safe. However, few studies have analyzed the use of the technique in clinical settings. To analyze how the BFR technique has been applied by professionals working in the clinical area and the prevalence of side effects (SEs) resulting from the use of this technique. This is a cross-sectional study. A total of 136 Brazilian professionals who perform some function related to physical rehabilitation, sports science, or physical conditioning participated in this study. Participants answered a self-administered online questionnaire consisting of 21 questions related to the professional profile and methodological aspects and SEs of the BFR technique. Professionals reported applying the BFR technique on individuals from different age groups from youth (≤18 years; 3.5%) to older adults (60–80 years; 30.7%), but mainly on people within the age group of 20 to 29 years (74.6%). A total of 99.1% of the professionals coupled the BFR technique with resistance exercise. Their main goals were muscle hypertrophy and physical rehabilitation. The majority (60.9%) of interviewees reported using BFR in durations of less than 5 minutes and the pressure used was mainly determined through the values of brachial blood pressure and arterial occlusion. Moreover, 92% of professionals declared observing at least 1 SE resulting from the BFR technique. Most professionals observed tingling (71.2%) and delayed onset of muscle soreness (55.8%). Rhabdomyolysis, fainting, and subcutaneous hemorrhaging were reported less frequently (1.9%, 3.8%, and 4.8%, respectively). Our findings indicate that the prescription of blood flow restriction technique results in minimal serious side effects when it is done in a proper clinical environment and follows the proposed recommendations found in relevant scientific literature. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2021-05-07 /pmc/articles/PMC8104249/ /pubmed/33950976 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000025794 Text en Copyright © 2021 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) |
spellingShingle | 6300 de Queiros, Victor Sabino Dantas, Matheus Neto, Gabriel Rodrigues da Silva, Luiz Felipe Assis, Marina Gonçalves Almeida-Neto, Paulo Francisco Dantas, Paulo Moreira Silva Cabral, Breno Guilherme de Araújo Tinôco Application and side effects of blood flow restriction technique: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey of professionals |
title | Application and side effects of blood flow restriction technique: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey of professionals |
title_full | Application and side effects of blood flow restriction technique: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey of professionals |
title_fullStr | Application and side effects of blood flow restriction technique: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey of professionals |
title_full_unstemmed | Application and side effects of blood flow restriction technique: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey of professionals |
title_short | Application and side effects of blood flow restriction technique: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey of professionals |
title_sort | application and side effects of blood flow restriction technique: a cross-sectional questionnaire survey of professionals |
topic | 6300 |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8104249/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33950976 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000025794 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dequeirosvictorsabino applicationandsideeffectsofbloodflowrestrictiontechniqueacrosssectionalquestionnairesurveyofprofessionals AT dantasmatheus applicationandsideeffectsofbloodflowrestrictiontechniqueacrosssectionalquestionnairesurveyofprofessionals AT netogabrielrodrigues applicationandsideeffectsofbloodflowrestrictiontechniqueacrosssectionalquestionnairesurveyofprofessionals AT dasilvaluizfelipe applicationandsideeffectsofbloodflowrestrictiontechniqueacrosssectionalquestionnairesurveyofprofessionals AT assismarinagoncalves applicationandsideeffectsofbloodflowrestrictiontechniqueacrosssectionalquestionnairesurveyofprofessionals AT almeidanetopaulofrancisco applicationandsideeffectsofbloodflowrestrictiontechniqueacrosssectionalquestionnairesurveyofprofessionals AT dantaspaulomoreirasilva applicationandsideeffectsofbloodflowrestrictiontechniqueacrosssectionalquestionnairesurveyofprofessionals AT cabralbrenoguilhermedearaujotinoco applicationandsideeffectsofbloodflowrestrictiontechniqueacrosssectionalquestionnairesurveyofprofessionals |