Jeffrey S Martin1, Alexandra R Borges, Darren T Beck. 1. Department of Cell Biology and Physiology, Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine-Auburn Campus, 910 S. Donahue Drive, Auburn, AL, 36832, USA, jmartin@auburn.vcom.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION:External pneumatic compression (EPC) is being employed for a widening range of clinical and non-clinical populations. However, EPC devices vary markedly in treatment pressures, duty cycles and application sites, and the acute effects of whole limb, lower pressure EPC on peripheral vascular function have not been determined. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the acute effects of a single bout of peristaltic pulse EPC on peripheral conduit and resistance artery function. METHODS:Twenty (n = 20; males = 12 and females = 8) young and apparently healthy subjects (aged 26.1 ± 8.2 years) participated in this study. A sequential EPC device with five inflation zones arranged linearly and inflating distal to proximal along the lower limbs was employed with target inflation pressures of 70 mmHg for 1 h. Flow-mediated dilation (FMD) of the brachial and popliteal arteries was evaluated with ultrasound before and after EPC. Venous occlusion plethysmography was employed to evaluate limb blood flow at rest and during reactive hyperemia (RH) in the forearm (FBF) and calf (CBF) before and after EPC. RESULTS:Peak RH CBF was increased by 9 % after EPC (P < 0.05), whereas peak RH FBF (-10 %) did not change significantly (P > 0.25). Normalized popliteal artery FMD post-EPC (2.24 ± 1.41) was significantly higher than pre-EPC (1.36 ± 0.67, P = 0.015) and post-sham (1.58 ± 0.86, P = 0.032) values. Similarly, normalized brachial artery FMD post-EPC (1.47 ± 0.32) was significantly higher than pre-EPC (1.11 ± 0.41, P = 0.004) and post-sham (0.99 ± 0.27, P = 0.026) values. CONCLUSION: Acutely, whole limb, lower pressure EPC improves conduit artery endothelial function systemically, but only improves RH blood flow locally (i.e., compressed limbs).
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION:External pneumatic compression (EPC) is being employed for a widening range of clinical and non-clinical populations. However, EPC devices vary markedly in treatment pressures, duty cycles and application sites, and the acute effects of whole limb, lower pressure EPC on peripheral vascular function have not been determined. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the acute effects of a single bout of peristaltic pulse EPC on peripheral conduit and resistance artery function. METHODS: Twenty (n = 20; males = 12 and females = 8) young and apparently healthy subjects (aged 26.1 ± 8.2 years) participated in this study. A sequential EPC device with five inflation zones arranged linearly and inflating distal to proximal along the lower limbs was employed with target inflation pressures of 70 mmHg for 1 h. Flow-mediated dilation (FMD) of the brachial and popliteal arteries was evaluated with ultrasound before and after EPC. Venous occlusion plethysmography was employed to evaluate limb blood flow at rest and during reactive hyperemia (RH) in the forearm (FBF) and calf (CBF) before and after EPC. RESULTS: Peak RH CBF was increased by 9 % after EPC (P < 0.05), whereas peak RH FBF (-10 %) did not change significantly (P > 0.25). Normalized popliteal artery FMD post-EPC (2.24 ± 1.41) was significantly higher than pre-EPC (1.36 ± 0.67, P = 0.015) and post-sham (1.58 ± 0.86, P = 0.032) values. Similarly, normalized brachial artery FMD post-EPC (1.47 ± 0.32) was significantly higher than pre-EPC (1.11 ± 0.41, P = 0.004) and post-sham (0.99 ± 0.27, P = 0.026) values. CONCLUSION: Acutely, whole limb, lower pressure EPC improves conduit artery endothelial function systemically, but only improves RH blood flow locally (i.e., compressed limbs).
Authors: T Osanai; N Fujita; N Fujiwara; T Nakano; K Takahashi; W Guan; K Okumura Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 4.733
Authors: Joseph C Avery; Darren T Beck; Darren P Casey; Paloma D Sardina; Randy W Braith Journal: Appl Physiol Nutr Metab Date: 2013-10-11 Impact factor: 2.665
Authors: Philip S Clifford; Heidi A Kluess; Jason J Hamann; John B Buckwalter; Jeffrey L Jasperse Journal: J Physiol Date: 2006-02-23 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: Julia C Blumkaitis; Jessica M Moon; Kayla M Ratliff; Richard A Stecker; Scott R Richmond; Kyle L Sunderland; Chad M Kerksick; Jeffrey S Martin; Petey W Mumford Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2022-04-27 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Cody T Haun; Wesley C Kephart; Angelia M Holland; Christopher B Mobley; Anna E McCloskey; Joshua J Shake; David D Pascoe; Michael D Roberts; Jeffrey S Martin Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2016-09-30 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Cody T Haun; Michael D Roberts; Matthew A Romero; Shelby C Osburn; James C Healy; Angelique N Moore; Christopher B Mobley; Paul A Roberson; Wesley C Kephart; Petey W Mumford; Michael D Goodlett; David D Pascoe; Jeffrey S Martin Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2017-10-26 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Kyoungrae Kim; Christopher K Kargl; Bohyun Ro; Qifan Song; Kimberly Stein; Timothy P Gavin; Bruno T Roseguini Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2021-11-01
Authors: Cody T Haun; Michael D Roberts; Matthew A Romero; Shelby C Osburn; Christopher B Mobley; Richard G Anderson; Michael D Goodlett; David D Pascoe; Jeffrey S Martin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-06-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jeffrey S Martin; Wesley C Kephart; Cody T Haun; Anna E McCloskey; Joshua J Shake; Christopher B Mobley; Michael D Goodlett; Andreas Kavazis; David D Pascoe; Lee Zhang; Michael D Roberts Journal: Physiol Rep Date: 2016-11
Authors: Thilo Hotfiel; Isabel Mayer; Moritz Huettel; Matthias Wilhelm Hoppe; Martin Engelhardt; Christoph Lutter; Klaus Pöttgen; Rafael Heiss; Tom Kastner; Casper Grim Journal: Sports (Basel) Date: 2019-06-13
Authors: Jeffrey S Martin; Allison M Martin; Petey W Mumford; Lorena P Salom; Angelique N Moore; David D Pascoe Journal: PeerJ Date: 2018-05-29 Impact factor: 2.984