Abstract
Background
Blood flow restriction training (BFRT) is an emerging area for rehabilitative medicine utilising low loads (<40% 1RM) to give comparable strengthening results to high load training (>70% 1RM). This allows patients with protected weight bearing status or that are unable to tolerate higher loads due to pain or pathology to improve strength. Optimal pressure application protocols are yet to be established. BFRT utilises a cuff to restrict blood flow into a limb, these either have an integrated pressure gauge allowing accurate pressure application……. Practical blood flow restriction (pBFR) does not utilise integrated pressure gauges within the BFRT cuffs. pBFR cuffs are significantly cheaper than integrated devices and are therefore more affordable for NHS departments or individual private purchases.
Several methods have tried to establish safe and effective processes to use pBFR. Four studies have used pressure perception with varying results. This study aims to establish a safe and effective protocol for pressure perception for use in clinical practice.
Objectives
To examine whether taught pressure (60% Arterial Occlusion Pressure (AOP) can be replicated by the participants themselves using an identical device over 4 weekly intervals. This would answer two questions: firstly, whether this method was accurate enough for research purposes. Secondly, whether this could be used in a variety of clinical settings with wider error margins (AOP 40-80%).
Methods
A repeated methods approach used 25 healthy adult participants (13m, 12f) aged between 22-59. Participants had no known vascular risk factors. After health screening and AOP calculation, participants were taught the target pressure. Participants were blinded to the sphygmomanometer, then attempted to replicate the target pressure. This was repeated at day 7, 14, and 21 (+/- 1 day)
Results
One participant did not complete the study. A repeated measures ANOVA test demonstrates no significant difference between group means (P= .345) and F= 1.19 suggesting average pressure application was comparable at each data level. A RMcorr test (P=0.759) suggests this method was too inconsistent for research. However, 69.8% applications were between 40-80% AOP making safe and effective pressure applications. 79.31% estimated errors were below 40% AOP resulting in safe but likely ineffective pressure application. No participant reached their AOP with estimated pressure application.
Conclusion
The results demonstrate participant pressure applications are safe but not consistently within effective range. Further research is required to establish best pBFR practice.
Blood flow restriction training (BFRT) is an emerging area for rehabilitative medicine utilising low loads (<40% 1RM) to give comparable strengthening results to high load training (>70% 1RM). This allows patients with protected weight bearing status or that are unable to tolerate higher loads due to pain or pathology to improve strength. Optimal pressure application protocols are yet to be established. BFRT utilises a cuff to restrict blood flow into a limb, these either have an integrated pressure gauge allowing accurate pressure application……. Practical blood flow restriction (pBFR) does not utilise integrated pressure gauges within the BFRT cuffs. pBFR cuffs are significantly cheaper than integrated devices and are therefore more affordable for NHS departments or individual private purchases.
Several methods have tried to establish safe and effective processes to use pBFR. Four studies have used pressure perception with varying results. This study aims to establish a safe and effective protocol for pressure perception for use in clinical practice.
Objectives
To examine whether taught pressure (60% Arterial Occlusion Pressure (AOP) can be replicated by the participants themselves using an identical device over 4 weekly intervals. This would answer two questions: firstly, whether this method was accurate enough for research purposes. Secondly, whether this could be used in a variety of clinical settings with wider error margins (AOP 40-80%).
Methods
A repeated methods approach used 25 healthy adult participants (13m, 12f) aged between 22-59. Participants had no known vascular risk factors. After health screening and AOP calculation, participants were taught the target pressure. Participants were blinded to the sphygmomanometer, then attempted to replicate the target pressure. This was repeated at day 7, 14, and 21 (+/- 1 day)
Results
One participant did not complete the study. A repeated measures ANOVA test demonstrates no significant difference between group means (P= .345) and F= 1.19 suggesting average pressure application was comparable at each data level. A RMcorr test (P=0.759) suggests this method was too inconsistent for research. However, 69.8% applications were between 40-80% AOP making safe and effective pressure applications. 79.31% estimated errors were below 40% AOP resulting in safe but likely ineffective pressure application. No participant reached their AOP with estimated pressure application.
Conclusion
The results demonstrate participant pressure applications are safe but not consistently within effective range. Further research is required to establish best pBFR practice.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Publication status | Published - 21 Jun 2024 |
| Event | MACP/APPN Nurturing Research in Practice Conference - Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom Duration: 21 Jun 2024 → 21 Jun 2024 https://www.appn.org.uk/nurturing-researchers-conference |
Conference
| Conference | MACP/APPN Nurturing Research in Practice Conference |
|---|---|
| Abbreviated title | APPN 2024 |
| Country/Territory | United Kingdom |
| City | Manchester |
| Period | 21/06/24 → 21/06/24 |
| Internet address |