Matthew B Jessee1, Samuel L Buckner1, Scott J Dankel1, Brittany R Counts1, Takashi Abe2, Jeremy P Loenneke3. 1. Department of Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management, Kevser Ermin Applied Physiology Laboratory, The University of Mississippi, P.O. Box 1848, University, MS, 38677, USA. 2. National Institute of Fitness and Sports in Kanoya, Kanoya, Kagoshima, Japan. 3. Department of Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management, Kevser Ermin Applied Physiology Laboratory, The University of Mississippi, P.O. Box 1848, University, MS, 38677, USA. jploenne@olemiss.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The main aim of this study was to examine differences in upper arm arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) between three different cuff widths and how individual characteristics influence this. Additional aims of the study were to investigate differences in AOP due to sex and race and to create regression equations that estimate AOP for each cuff width. METHODS: Two hundred and forty nine participants (males n = 102; females n = 147) visited the laboratory once for measurement of arm length, arm circumference, and resting brachial systolic (bSBP) and diastolic blood pressure (bDBP). Next, each cuff was applied to the upper arm and inflated until a Doppler probe placed at the radial artery no longer detected blood flow. The minimum inflation pressure that caused cessation of blood flow was determined to be the AOP. RESULTS: Differences in AOP were observed between cuff widths (p < 0.001). The 5-cm-wide cuff required the greatest inflation pressure [145 (19) mmHg], followed by the 10 cm [123 (13) mmHg], and 12-cm-wide cuff [120 (12) mmHg]. A model encompassing arm circumference, bSBP, arm length, bDBP, and sex explained the most variance in AOP for each cuff (5 cm, R (2) = 0.651; 10 cm, R (2) = 0.570; 12 cm, R (2) = 0.557). However, arm circumference explained the most unique variance for each cuff. When separated by sex, males required greater pressures. Additionally, after controlling for sex, it was found that non-Hispanic Blacks required greater pressures compared with Whites. The regression equations for each cuff width are as follows: 5 cm (mmHg) = 2.926 (arm circumference) + 1.002 (bSBP) - 0.428 (arm length) + 0.213 (bDBP) + 12.668 (sex) - 68.493; 10 cm (mmHg) = 1.545 (arm circumference) + 0.722 (bSBP) - 0.235 (arm length) + 0.205 (bDBP) + 6.378 (sex) - 15.918; 12 cm (mmHg) = 1.393 (arm circumference) + 0.710 (bSBP) - 0.294 (arm length) + 0.164 (bDBP) + 6.419 (sex) - 8.752. CONCLUSIONS: The AOP is dependent upon cuff width, highlighting the need for authors to report cuff width and consider the impact it has on restriction. Participant characteristics, especially arm circumference, should be considered when applying this blood flow restriction pressure. Lastly, both sex and race have an impact on AOP, although it is not presently known how meaningful this difference is.
PURPOSE: The main aim of this study was to examine differences in upper arm arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) between three different cuff widths and how individual characteristics influence this. Additional aims of the study were to investigate differences in AOP due to sex and race and to create regression equations that estimate AOP for each cuff width. METHODS: Two hundred and forty nine participants (males n = 102; females n = 147) visited the laboratory once for measurement of arm length, arm circumference, and resting brachial systolic (bSBP) and diastolic blood pressure (bDBP). Next, each cuff was applied to the upper arm and inflated until a Doppler probe placed at the radial artery no longer detected blood flow. The minimum inflation pressure that caused cessation of blood flow was determined to be the AOP. RESULTS: Differences in AOP were observed between cuff widths (p < 0.001). The 5-cm-wide cuff required the greatest inflation pressure [145 (19) mmHg], followed by the 10 cm [123 (13) mmHg], and 12-cm-wide cuff [120 (12) mmHg]. A model encompassing arm circumference, bSBP, arm length, bDBP, and sex explained the most variance in AOP for each cuff (5 cm, R (2) = 0.651; 10 cm, R (2) = 0.570; 12 cm, R (2) = 0.557). However, arm circumference explained the most unique variance for each cuff. When separated by sex, males required greater pressures. Additionally, after controlling for sex, it was found that non-Hispanic Blacks required greater pressures compared with Whites. The regression equations for each cuff width are as follows: 5 cm (mmHg) = 2.926 (arm circumference) + 1.002 (bSBP) - 0.428 (arm length) + 0.213 (bDBP) + 12.668 (sex) - 68.493; 10 cm (mmHg) = 1.545 (arm circumference) + 0.722 (bSBP) - 0.235 (arm length) + 0.205 (bDBP) + 6.378 (sex) - 15.918; 12 cm (mmHg) = 1.393 (arm circumference) + 0.710 (bSBP) - 0.294 (arm length) + 0.164 (bDBP) + 6.419 (sex) - 8.752. CONCLUSIONS: The AOP is dependent upon cuff width, highlighting the need for authors to report cuff width and consider the impact it has on restriction. Participant characteristics, especially arm circumference, should be considered when applying this blood flow restriction pressure. Lastly, both sex and race have an impact on AOP, although it is not presently known how meaningful this difference is.
Authors: J Martín-Hernández; P J Marín; H Menéndez; C Ferrero; J P Loenneke; A J Herrero Journal: Scand J Med Sci Sports Date: 2012-12-27 Impact factor: 4.221
Authors: Jeremy P Loenneke; Kirsten M Allen; J Grant Mouser; Robert S Thiebaud; Daeyeol Kim; Takashi Abe; Michael G Bemben Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2014-10-22 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: A H Goldfarb; R S Garten; P D M Chee; C Cho; G V Reeves; D B Hollander; C Thomas; K S Aboudehen; M Francois; R R Kraemer Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2008-07-26 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: M Kooijman; D H J Thijssen; P C E de Groot; M W P Bleeker; H J M van Kuppevelt; D J Green; G A Rongen; P Smits; M T E Hopman Journal: J Physiol Date: 2007-12-20 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: J Grant Mouser; Scott J Dankel; Matthew B Jessee; Kevin T Mattocks; Samuel L Buckner; Brittany R Counts; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2017-05-13 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Samuel L Buckner; Scott J Dankel; Brittany R Counts; Matthew B Jessee; J Grant Mouser; Kevin T Mattocks; Gilberto C Laurentino; Takashi Abe; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: J Physiol Sci Date: 2016-05-19 Impact factor: 2.781
Authors: Zachary W Bell; Matthew B Jessee; Kevin T Mattocks; Samuel L Buckner; Scott J Dankel; J Grant Mouser; Takashi Abe; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: Int J Exerc Sci Date: 2020-02-01
Authors: Stefanos Karanasios; Charikleia Koutri; Maria Moutzouri; Sofia A Xergia; Vasiliki Sakellari; George Gioftsos Journal: Sports Health Date: 2021-09-13 Impact factor: 4.355
Authors: Daniel S Lorenz; Lane Bailey; Kevin E Wilk; Robert E Mangine; Paul Head; Terry L Grindstaff; Scot Morrison Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2021-09-01 Impact factor: 3.824
Authors: Luke Hughes; Owen Jeffries; Mark Waldron; Ben Rosenblatt; Conor Gissane; Bruce Paton; Stephen D Patterson Journal: PeerJ Date: 2018-05-02 Impact factor: 2.984