Peter Sieljacks1, Louise Knudsen1, Mathias Wernbom2,3, Kristian Vissing4. 1. Section for Sports Science, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Dalgas Avenue 4, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark. 2. Center for Health and Performance, Department of Food and Nutrition and Sport Science, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 3. Lundberg Laboratory for Orthopaedic Research, Department of Orthopedics, The Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 4. Section for Sports Science, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Dalgas Avenue 4, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark. vissing@ph.au.dk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) measured in a supine position is often used to set cuff pressures for blood flow restricted exercise (BFRE). However, supine AOP may not reflect seated or standing AOP, thus potentially influencing the degree of occlusion. The primary aim of the study was to investigate the effect of body position on AOP. A secondary aim was to investigate predictors of AOP using wide and narrow cuffs. METHODS: Twenty-four subjects underwent measurements of thigh circumference, skinfold and blood pressure, followed by assessments of thigh AOP in supine and seated positions with a wide and a narrow cuff, respectively, using Doppler ultrasound. RESULTS: In the supine position, AOP was 148 ± 19 and 348 ± 94 mmHg with the wide and narrow cuff, respectively. This increased to 177 ± 20 and 409 ± 101 mmHg in the seated position, with correlations between supine and seated AOP of R 2 = 0.81 and R 2 = 0.50 for the wide and narrow cuff, respectively. For both cuff widths, thigh circumference constituted the strongest predictor of AOP, with diastolic blood pressure explaining additional variance with the wide cuff. The predictive strength of these variables did not differ between body positions. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that body position strongly influences lower limb AOP, especially with narrow cuffs, yielding very high AOP (≥ 500-600 mmHg) in some subjects. This should be taken into account in the standardization of cuff pressures used during BFRE to better control the physiological effects of BFRE.
PURPOSE: Arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) measured in a supine position is often used to set cuff pressures for blood flow restricted exercise (BFRE). However, supine AOP may not reflect seated or standing AOP, thus potentially influencing the degree of occlusion. The primary aim of the study was to investigate the effect of body position on AOP. A secondary aim was to investigate predictors of AOP using wide and narrow cuffs. METHODS: Twenty-four subjects underwent measurements of thigh circumference, skinfold and blood pressure, followed by assessments of thigh AOP in supine and seated positions with a wide and a narrow cuff, respectively, using Doppler ultrasound. RESULTS: In the supine position, AOP was 148 ± 19 and 348 ± 94 mmHg with the wide and narrow cuff, respectively. This increased to 177 ± 20 and 409 ± 101 mmHg in the seated position, with correlations between supine and seated AOP of R 2 = 0.81 and R 2 = 0.50 for the wide and narrow cuff, respectively. For both cuff widths, thigh circumference constituted the strongest predictor of AOP, with diastolic blood pressure explaining additional variance with the wide cuff. The predictive strength of these variables did not differ between body positions. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that body position strongly influences lower limb AOP, especially with narrow cuffs, yielding very high AOP (≥ 500-600 mmHg) in some subjects. This should be taken into account in the standardization of cuff pressures used during BFRE to better control the physiological effects of BFRE.
Authors: Manoel E Lixandrão; Carlos Ugrinowitsch; Gilberto Laurentino; Cleiton A Libardi; André Y Aihara; Fabiano N Cardoso; Valmor Tricoli; Hamilton Roschel Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2015-09-01 Impact factor: 3.078
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: David J Tennent; Christina M Hylden; Anthony E Johnson; Travis C Burns; Jason M Wilken; Johnny G Owens Journal: Clin J Sport Med Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 3.638
Authors: G Laurentino; C Ugrinowitsch; A Y Aihara; A R Fernandes; A C Parcell; M Ricard; V Tricoli Journal: Int J Sports Med Date: 2008-01-22 Impact factor: 3.118
Authors: Melina Andrade Mattar; Bruno Gualano; Luiz Augusto Perandini; Samuel Katsuyuki Shinjo; Fernanda Rodrigues Lima; Ana Lúcia Sá-Pinto; Hamilton Roschel Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2014-10-25 Impact factor: 5.156
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: 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
Authors: Peter Sieljacks; Jakob Wang; Thomas Groennebaek; Emil Rindom; Jesper Emil Jakobsgaard; Jon Herskind; Anders Gravholt; Andreas B Møller; Robert V Musci; Frank V de Paoli; Karyn L Hamilton; Benjamin F Miller; Kristian Vissing Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2019-05-29 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Yining Lu; Bhavik H Patel; Craig Kym; Benedict U Nwachukwu; Alexander Beletksy; Brian Forsythe; Jorge Chahla Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2020-03-25