Dataset Information

Chronic Blood Flow Restriction Exercise Improves Objective Physical Function: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: Background: Blood flow restriction or KAATSU exercise training is associated with greater muscle mass and strength increases than non-blood flow restriction equivalent exercise. Blood flow restriction exercise has been proposed as a possible alternative to more physically demanding exercise prescriptions (such as high-load/high-intensity resistance training) in a range of clinical and chronic disease populations. While the maintenance of muscle mass and size with reduced musculoskeletal tissue loading appeals in many of these physically impaired populations, there remains a disconnect between some of the desired clinical measures for chronic disease populations and those commonly measured in the literature examining blood flow restriction exercise. While strength does play a vital role in physical function, task-specific objective measures of physical function indicative of activities of daily living are often more clinically relevant and applicable for evaluating the success of medical and surgical interventions or monitoring age- and disease-related physical decline. Objective: To determine whether exercise interventions utilizing blood flow restriction are able to improve objective measures of physical function indicative of activities of daily living. Methods: A systematic search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Springer identified 13 randomized control trials utilizing an exercise intervention combined with blood flow restriction, while measuring at least one objective measure of physical function. Participants were ≥18 years of age. Systematic review of the literature and quality assessment of the included studies used the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk bias. Results: Data from 13 studies with a total of 332 participants showed blood flow restriction exercise, regardless of modality, most notably increased performance on the 30 s sit-to-stand and timed up and go tests, and generally improved physical function on other tests including walking tests, variations of sit-to-stand tests, and balance, jumping, and stepping tests. Conclusions: From the evidence available, blood flow restriction exercise of multiple modalities improved objective measures of physical function indicative of activities of daily living.

SUBMITTER: Clarkson MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6712096 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PURPOSE:Combining blood flow restriction (BFR) with exercise can stimulate skeletal muscle hypertrophy. Recent observations in an animal model suggest that BFR performed without exercise can also induce anabolic effects. We assessed the effect of BFR performed both with and without low-load resistance-type exercise (LLRE) on in vivo myofibrillar protein synthesis rates in young men. METHODS:Twenty healthy young men (age = 24 ± 1 yr, body mass index = 22.9 ± 0.6 kg·m) were randomly assigned to remain in resting condition (REST ± BFR; n = 10) or to perform LLRE (LLRE ± BFR at 20% one-repetition maximum; n = 10), combined with two 5-min cycles of single leg BFR. Myofibrillar protein synthesis rates were assessed during a 5-h post-BFR period by combining a primed continuous L-[ring-C6]phenylalanine infusion with the collection of blood samples, and muscle biopsies from the BFR leg and the contralateral control leg. The phosphorylation status of anabolic signaling (mammalian target of rapamycin pathway) and metabolic stress (acetyl-CoA carboxylase)-related proteins, as well as the mRNA expression of genes associated with skeletal muscle mass regulation, was assessed in the collected muscle samples. RESULTS:Under resting conditions, no differences in anabolic signaling or myofibrillar protein synthesis rates were observed between REST + BFR and REST (0.044% ± 0.004% vs 0.043% ± 0.004% per hour, respectively; P = 0.683). By contrast, LLRE + BFR increased myofibrillar protein synthesis rates by 10% ± 5% compared with LLRE (0.048% ± 0.005% vs 0.043% ± 0.004% per hour, respectively; P = 0.042). Furthermore, compared with LLRE, LLRE + BFR showed higher phosphorylation status of acetyl-CoA carboxylase and 4E-BP1 as well as the elevated mRNA expression of MuRF1 (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSION:BFR does not increase myofibrillar protein synthesis rates in healthy young men under resting conditions. When combined with LLRE, BFR increases postexercise myofibrillar protein synthesis rates in vivo in humans.

Project description:Resistance training may be associated with unfavorable cardiovascular responses (such as hemodynamic alterations, anginal symptoms or ventricular arrhythmias). In healthy adults, blood flow-restricted (BFR) resistance training improves muscle strength and hypertrophy improvements at lower loads with minimal systemic cardiovascular adverse responses. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of BFR resistance training in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) compared to usual care. Patients with stable CAD were randomized to either 8 weeks of supervised biweekly BFR resistance training (30-40% 1RM unilateral knee extension) or usual exercise routine. At baseline and after 8 weeks, patients underwent 1-RM knee extension tests, ultrasonographic appraisal of vastus lateralis (VL) muscle diameter and of systemic (brachial artery) flow-mediated dilation, and determination of markers of inflammation (CD40 ligand and tumor necrosis factor alfa), and fasting glucose and insulin levels for homeostatic model assessment (HOMA). A total of 24 patients [12 per group, mean age 60 ± 2 years, 6 (25%) women] were included. No training-related adverse events were recorded. At baseline groups significantly differ in age (mean difference: 8.7 years, p < 0.001), systolic blood pressure (mean difference: 12.17 mmHg, p = 0.024) and in metabolic control [insulin (p = 0.014) and HOMA IR (p = 0.014)]. BFR-resistance training significantly increased muscle strength (1-RM, +8.96 kg, p < 0.001), and decreased systolic blood pressure (-6.77 mmHg; p = 0.030), whereas VL diameter (+0.09 cm, p = 0.096), brachial artery flow-mediated vasodilation (+1.55%; p = 0.079) and insulin sensitivity (HOMA IR change of 1.15, p = 0.079) did not improve significantly. Blood flow restricted resistance training is safe and associated with significant improvements in muscle strength, and may be therefore provided as an additional exercise option to aerobic exercise to improve skeletal muscle functioning in patients with CAD. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT03087292.

Dataset Information

Chronic Blood Flow Restriction Exercise Improves Objective Physical Function: A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets