J Grant Mouser1, Scott J Dankel1, Matthew B Jessee1, Kevin T Mattocks1, Samuel L Buckner1, Brittany R Counts2, 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. Integrative Muscle Biology Laboratory, Department of Exercise Science, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA. 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
INTRODUCTION: The blood flow response to relative levels of blood flow restriction (BFR) across varying cuff widths is not well documented. With the variety of cuff widths and pressures reported in the literature, the effects of different cuffs and pressures on blood flow require investigation. PURPOSE: To measure blood pressure using three commonly used BFR cuffs, examine possible venous/arterial restriction pressures, and measure hemodynamic responses to relative levels of BFR using these same cuffs. METHODS: 43 participants (Experiment 1, brachial artery blood pressure assessed) and 38 participants (Experiment 2, brachial artery blood flow assessed using ultrasound, cuff placed at proximal portion of arm) volunteered for this study. RESULTS: Blood pressure measurement was higher in the 5 cm cuff than in the 10 and 12 cm cuffs. Sub-diastolic relative pressures appear to occur predominantly at <60% of arterial occlusion pressure (AOP). Blood flow under relative levels of restriction decreases in a non-linear fashion, with minimal differences between cuffs [resting: 50.3 (44.2) ml min-1; 10% AOP: 42.0 (36.8); 20%: 33.6 (28.6); 30%: 23.6 (20.4); 40%: 17.1 (15.9); 50%: 12.5 (9.4); 60%: 11.5 (8.1); 70%: 11.4 (7.0); 80%: 10.3 (6.3); 90%: 7.9 (4.8); 100%: 1.5 (2.9)]. Peak blood velocity remains relatively constant until higher levels (>70% of AOP) are surpassed. Calculated mean shear rate decreases in a similar fashion as blood flow. CONCLUSIONS: Under relative levels of restriction, pressures from 40 to 90% of AOP appear to decrease blood flow to a similar degree in these three cuffs. Relative pressures appear to elicit a similar blood flow stimulus when accounting for cuff width and participant characteristics.
INTRODUCTION: The blood flow response to relative levels of blood flow restriction (BFR) across varying cuff widths is not well documented. With the variety of cuff widths and pressures reported in the literature, the effects of different cuffs and pressures on blood flow require investigation. PURPOSE: To measure blood pressure using three commonly used BFR cuffs, examine possible venous/arterial restriction pressures, and measure hemodynamic responses to relative levels of BFR using these same cuffs. METHODS: 43 participants (Experiment 1, brachial artery blood pressure assessed) and 38 participants (Experiment 2, brachial artery blood flow assessed using ultrasound, cuff placed at proximal portion of arm) volunteered for this study. RESULTS: Blood pressure measurement was higher in the 5 cm cuff than in the 10 and 12 cm cuffs. Sub-diastolic relative pressures appear to occur predominantly at <60% of arterial occlusion pressure (AOP). Blood flow under relative levels of restriction decreases in a non-linear fashion, with minimal differences between cuffs [resting: 50.3 (44.2) ml min-1; 10% AOP: 42.0 (36.8); 20%: 33.6 (28.6); 30%: 23.6 (20.4); 40%: 17.1 (15.9); 50%: 12.5 (9.4); 60%: 11.5 (8.1); 70%: 11.4 (7.0); 80%: 10.3 (6.3); 90%: 7.9 (4.8); 100%: 1.5 (2.9)]. Peak blood velocity remains relatively constant until higher levels (>70% of AOP) are surpassed. Calculated mean shear rate decreases in a similar fashion as blood flow. CONCLUSIONS: Under relative levels of restriction, pressures from 40 to 90% of AOP appear to decrease blood flow to a similar degree in these three cuffs. Relative pressures appear to elicit a similar blood flow stimulus when accounting for cuff width and participant characteristics.
Authors: Matthew B Jessee; Samuel L Buckner; J Grant Mouser; Kevin T Mattocks; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2016-01-01 Impact factor: 4.733
Authors: J Grant Mouser; Carl J Ade; Christopher D Black; Debra A Bemben; Michael G Bemben Journal: Clin Physiol Funct Imaging Date: 2017-04-12 Impact factor: 2.273
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: Eric J Adkisson; Darren P Casey; Darren T Beck; Alvaro N Gurovich; Jeffery S Martin; Randy W Braith Journal: Exp Biol Med (Maywood) Date: 2010-01
Authors: Matthew B Jessee; Samuel L Buckner; Scott J Dankel; Brittany R Counts; Takashi Abe; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: Sports Med Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Daniel P Credeur; Raymond Jones; Daphney Stanford; Lee Stoner; Stephanie McCoy; Matthew Jessee Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2019-08-16 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Matthew A Kilgas; John McDaniel; Jon Stavres; Brandon S Pollock; Tyler J Singer; Steven J Elmer Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2018-11-12 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Matthew B Jessee; J Grant Mouser; Samuel L Buckner; Scott J Dankel; Kevin T Mattocks; Takashi Abe; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: J Physiol Sci Date: 2018-01-18 Impact factor: 2.781
Authors: Tyler J Singer; Jon Stavres; Steven J Elmer; Matthew A Kilgas; Brandon S Pollock; Sarah G Kearney; John McDaniel Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2019-11-08 Impact factor: 3.078
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