Cargando…
Differences in the limb blood flow between two types of blood flow restriction cuffs: A pilot study
Introduction: The determination of the optimal occlusion level is a key parameter in blood flow restriction (BFR). This study aimed to compare the effects of elastic (BStrong) vs. nylon (Hokanson) BFR cuffs on blood flow in the lower and upper limbs. Methods: Eleven healthy participants undertook se...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9360536/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35957986 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2022.931270 |
_version_ | 1784764341995700224 |
---|---|
author | Citherlet, Tom Willis, Sarah J. Chaperon, Audrey Millet, Grégoire P. |
author_facet | Citherlet, Tom Willis, Sarah J. Chaperon, Audrey Millet, Grégoire P. |
author_sort | Citherlet, Tom |
collection | PubMed |
description | Introduction: The determination of the optimal occlusion level is a key parameter in blood flow restriction (BFR). This study aimed to compare the effects of elastic (BStrong) vs. nylon (Hokanson) BFR cuffs on blood flow in the lower and upper limbs. Methods: Eleven healthy participants undertook several BFR sessions with 2 different cuffs of similar width on their lower and upper limbs at different pressures [200, 250, 300, 350, and 400 mmHg for BStrong and 0, 40, and 60% of the arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) for Hokanson]. Doppler ultrasound recorded blood flows through the brachial and femoral artery at rest. Results: With BStrong, only 350 and 400 mmHg pressures were significantly different from resting values (0% AOP). With Hokanson, both 40% and 60% of the AOP were significantly different from resting values (p < 0.05). Discussion: While both cuffs elicited BFR, they failed to accurately modulate blood flow. Hokanson is appropriate for research settings while BStrong appears to be a convenient tool for practitioners due to its safety (i.e., the impossibility of completely occluding arteries) and the possibility of exercising freely detached from the pump. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9360536 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-93605362022-08-10 Differences in the limb blood flow between two types of blood flow restriction cuffs: A pilot study Citherlet, Tom Willis, Sarah J. Chaperon, Audrey Millet, Grégoire P. Front Physiol Physiology Introduction: The determination of the optimal occlusion level is a key parameter in blood flow restriction (BFR). This study aimed to compare the effects of elastic (BStrong) vs. nylon (Hokanson) BFR cuffs on blood flow in the lower and upper limbs. Methods: Eleven healthy participants undertook several BFR sessions with 2 different cuffs of similar width on their lower and upper limbs at different pressures [200, 250, 300, 350, and 400 mmHg for BStrong and 0, 40, and 60% of the arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) for Hokanson]. Doppler ultrasound recorded blood flows through the brachial and femoral artery at rest. Results: With BStrong, only 350 and 400 mmHg pressures were significantly different from resting values (0% AOP). With Hokanson, both 40% and 60% of the AOP were significantly different from resting values (p < 0.05). Discussion: While both cuffs elicited BFR, they failed to accurately modulate blood flow. Hokanson is appropriate for research settings while BStrong appears to be a convenient tool for practitioners due to its safety (i.e., the impossibility of completely occluding arteries) and the possibility of exercising freely detached from the pump. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-07-26 /pmc/articles/PMC9360536/ /pubmed/35957986 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2022.931270 Text en Copyright © 2022 Citherlet, Willis, Chaperon and Millet. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Physiology Citherlet, Tom Willis, Sarah J. Chaperon, Audrey Millet, Grégoire P. Differences in the limb blood flow between two types of blood flow restriction cuffs: A pilot study |
title | Differences in the limb blood flow between two types of blood flow restriction cuffs: A pilot study |
title_full | Differences in the limb blood flow between two types of blood flow restriction cuffs: A pilot study |
title_fullStr | Differences in the limb blood flow between two types of blood flow restriction cuffs: A pilot study |
title_full_unstemmed | Differences in the limb blood flow between two types of blood flow restriction cuffs: A pilot study |
title_short | Differences in the limb blood flow between two types of blood flow restriction cuffs: A pilot study |
title_sort | differences in the limb blood flow between two types of blood flow restriction cuffs: a pilot study |
topic | Physiology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9360536/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35957986 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2022.931270 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT citherlettom differencesinthelimbbloodflowbetweentwotypesofbloodflowrestrictioncuffsapilotstudy AT willissarahj differencesinthelimbbloodflowbetweentwotypesofbloodflowrestrictioncuffsapilotstudy AT chaperonaudrey differencesinthelimbbloodflowbetweentwotypesofbloodflowrestrictioncuffsapilotstudy AT milletgregoirep differencesinthelimbbloodflowbetweentwotypesofbloodflowrestrictioncuffsapilotstudy |