COMPARING THE RESTING CARDIOVASCULAR RESPONSE TO COMMONLY USED BLOOD FLOW RESTRICTION DEVICES
J Barnes Benton, Daphney M. Stanford, Matthew A. Chatlaong, William M. Miller, Matthew B. Jessee. University of Mississippi, University, MS.
BACKGROUND: Alone, blood flow restriction is used as a tool to decrease muscle atrophy or recovery time. However, it is unknown whether devices used in clinical or research settings elicit a similar stimulus when using similar protocols. Thus, the purpose was to compare cardiovascular responses between a commonly used research device (RES) and clinical device (CLIN). METHODS: Over one visit, 15 individuals’ cardiovascular responses to blood flow restriction using CLIN and RES devices were measured on the right arm in a randomized and counterbalanced order. After 5 min of supine rest, arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) was measured, then during a second 5 min rest, a near-infrared spectroscopy device was placed at the muscle belly of the forearm to measure tissue deoxygenation (HHb, µm) and tissue saturation index (TSI, %). A pulse oximeter on the index finger measured heart rate (bpm) and % oxygen saturation. 0-10 scale ratings of perceived discomfort (RPE-D, AU) were also assessed. Blood flow (ml/min) was measured using pulsed wave Doppler ultrasonography at the brachial artery proximal to the antecubital space. All variables were assessed twice at 0% AOP and once at 50% AOP. Measures were spaced 1 min apart. Change scores (50% AOP - 0% AOP) presented as the mean ±SD were compared using Bayesian Paired Samples T-Tests (JASP). RESULTS: AOP differed between RES (157.27 ±21.82) and CLIN (143.73 ±15.47; BF₁₀= 12.78). However, weak to moderate evidence suggests that blood flow volume (RES: -33.71 ±38.57; CLIN: -29.96 ±36.73; BF10= .34), TSI (RES: -5.72 ±5.99; CLIN: -4.99 ±6.40; BF₁₀= 0.37), heart rate (RES: -.23 ±2.50; CLIN: -1.23 ±2.43; BF10= 0.789), and oxygen saturation may not differ between the devices (RES: -.47 ±.79; CLIN: -.63 ±.61; BF₁₀= 0.318). Weak to moderate evidence also suggests HHb for channel 1 (RES: 15.79 ±6.17; CLIN: 14.97 ±7.15; BF₁₀= 0.311), channel 2 (RES: 15.64 ±5.45; CLIN: 14.63 ±6.57; BF₁₀= 0.341), and channel 3 may not differ (RES: 14.82 ±4.86; CLIN: 13.91 ±6.03; BF₁₀= 0.329) between devices. Weak evidence also suggests RPE-D may not differ (RES: 1.03 ±1.11; CLIN: 1.30 ±1.46; BF₁₀= 0.529). CONCLUSION: AOP measurements were different between devices possibly due to device differences such as cuff width, material, and assessment of AOP. Interestingly, this may not lead to a difference in cardiovascular responses when using a relative pressure protocol at 50% AOP for each device.
Benton, JB; Stanford, DM; Chatlaong, MA; Miller, WM; and Jessee, MB
"COMPARING THE RESTING CARDIOVASCULAR RESPONSE TO COMMONLY USED BLOOD FLOW RESTRICTION DEVICES,"
International Journal of Exercise Science: Conference Proceedings: Vol. 16:
1, Article 151.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijesab/vol16/iss1/151