Comparing The Resting Cardiovascular Response To Commonly Used Blood Flow Restriction Devices

Abstract

Alone, blood flow restriction is used to decrease muscle atrophy or recovery time. However, it is unknown whetherdevices used in clinical or research settings elicit a similar stimulus when using similar protocols. PURPOSE: To compare cardiovascular responses between a commonly used research device (RES) and clinical device (CLIN). METHODS: Over one visit, 24 individuals’ cardiovascular response 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) and AOP presented as mean ± SD, were compared using Bayesian paired samples t-tests (JASP). RESULTS: AOP differed between RES (157.13 ± 19.54) and CLIN (143.17 ± 16.92; BF10 = 156.75). However, weak to moderate evidence suggested that changes in blood flow volume (RES: -33.13 ± 30.64; CLIN: -28.71 ± 28.75; BF10 = .41), TSI (RES: -4.68 ± 5.17; CLIN: -4.92 ± 5.50; BF10 = 0.23), heart rate (RES: 0 ± 3; CLIN: 0 ± 7; BF10 = 0.22), and oxygen saturation (RES: -1 ± 1; CLIN: -1 ± 1; BF10 = 0.25) did not differ between the devices. Moderate evidence suggested HHb for channel 1 (RES: 16.48 ± 5.50; CLIN: 16.41 ± 6.69; BF10 = 0.22), channel 2 (RES: 16.12 ± 4.84; CLIN: 15.89 ± 6.21; BF10 = 0.22), and channel 3 did not differ (RES: 15.44 ± 4.53; CLIN: 15.13 ± 5.78; BF10 = 0.23) between devices. Moderate evidence also suggested RPE-D did not differ (RES: 1.06 ± 1.29; CLIN: 1.10 ± 1.30; BF10 = 0.22). CONCLUSION: AOP measurements differed between devices, possibly due to cuff width, material, and/or assessment method. However, this did not lead to a difference in cardiovascular responses when applying a relative pressure of 50% AOP for each device.