Zachary W Bell1, Matthew B Jessee2, Kevin T Mattocks3, Samuel L Buckner4, Scott J Dankel5, J Grant Mouser6, Takashi Abe1, Jeremy P Loenneke1. 1. Department of Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management, Kevser Ermin Applied Physiology Laboratory, The University of Mississippi, University, MS. 2. Department of Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management, The University of Mississippi, University, MS. 3. Department of Exercise Science, Lindenwood University-Belleville, Belleville, Illinois. 4. Division of Exercise Science, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL. 5. Department of Health and Exercise Science, Exercise Physiology Laboratory, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ. 6. Department of Kinesiology and Health Promotion, Troy University, Troy, AL.
Abstract
Although often used as a surrogate, comparisons between traditional blood pressure measurements and limb occlusion assessed via hand-held Doppler have yet to be completed. Using limb occlusion pressure as a method of assessing systolic pressure is of interest to those studying the acute effects of blood flow restriction, where the removal of the cuff may alter the physiological response. PURPOSE: We sought to determine how changes in limb occlusion pressure track with changes in traditional assessments of blood pressure. BASIC PROCEDURES: Limb occlusion pressure measured by hand-held Doppler and blood pressure measured by an automatic blood pressure cuff were assessed at rest and following isometric knee extension (post and 5 minutes post). MAIN FINDINGS: Each individual had a similar dispersion from the mean value for both the limb occlusion pressure measurement and traditional systolic blood pressure measurement [BF10: 0.33; median (95% credible interval): 0.02 (-6.0, 5.9) %]. In response to lower body isometric exercise, blood pressure changed across time. The difference between measurements was small at immediately post and 5 minutes post. The Bayes factors were in the direction of the null but did not exceed the threshold needed to accept the null hypothesis. However, at 5 minutes post, the differences were within the range of practical equivalence (within ± 4.6%). PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that changes in limb occlusion pressure measured by hand-held Doppler track similarly to traditional measurements of brachial systolic blood pressure following isometric knee extension exercise.
Although often used as a surrogate, comparisons between traditional blood pressure measurements and limb occlusion assessed via hand-held Doppler have yet to be completed. Using limb occlusion pressure as a method of assessing systolic pressure is of interest to those studying the acute effects of blood flow restriction, where the removal of the cuff may alter the physiological response. PURPOSE: We sought to determine how changes in limb occlusion pressure track with changes in traditional assessments of blood pressure. BASIC PROCEDURES: Limb occlusion pressure measured by hand-held Doppler and blood pressure measured by an automatic blood pressure cuff were assessed at rest and following isometric knee extension (post and 5 minutes post). MAIN FINDINGS: Each individual had a similar dispersion from the mean value for both the limb occlusion pressure measurement and traditional systolic blood pressure measurement [BF10: 0.33; median (95% credible interval): 0.02 (-6.0, 5.9) %]. In response to lower body isometric exercise, blood pressure changed across time. The difference between measurements was small at immediately post and 5 minutes post. The Bayes factors were in the direction of the null but did not exceed the threshold needed to accept the null hypothesis. However, at 5 minutes post, the differences were within the range of practical equivalence (within ± 4.6%). PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that changes in limb occlusion pressure measured by hand-held Doppler track similarly to traditional measurements of brachial systolic blood pressure following isometric knee extension exercise.
Authors: J Grant Mouser; Gilberto C Laurentino; Scott J Dankel; Samuel L Buckner; Matthew B Jessee; Brittany R Counts; Kevin T Mattocks; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: Appl Physiol Nutr Metab Date: 2017-07-13 Impact factor: 2.665
Authors: Matthew B Jessee; Scott J Dankel; Samuel L Buckner; J Grant Mouser; Kevin T Mattocks; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: Int J Sports Med Date: 2017-06-26 Impact factor: 3.118
Authors: Kevin T Mattocks; Matthew B Jessee; Brittany R Counts; Samuel L Buckner; J Grant Mouser; Scott J Dankel; Gilberto C Laurentino; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: Physiol Behav Date: 2017-01-11
Authors: Meghan E Downs; Kyle J Hackney; David Martin; Timothy L Caine; David Cunningham; Daniel P O'Connor; Lori L Ploutz-Snyder Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Kevin T Mattocks; J Grant Mouser; Matthew B Jessee; Scott J Dankel; Samuel L Buckner; Zachary W Bell; Takashi Abe; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: Physiol Meas Date: 2018-12-21 Impact factor: 2.833
Authors: Zachary W Bell; Samuel L Buckner; Matthew B Jessee; J Grant Mouser; Kevin T Mattocks; Scott J Dankel; Takashi Abe; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2018-05-03 Impact factor: 3.078
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: Eric-Jan Wagenmakers; Jonathon Love; Maarten Marsman; Tahira Jamil; Alexander Ly; Josine Verhagen; Ravi Selker; Quentin F Gronau; Damian Dropmann; Bruno Boutin; Frans Meerhoff; Patrick Knight; Akash Raj; Erik-Jan van Kesteren; Johnny van Doorn; Martin Šmíra; Sacha Epskamp; Alexander Etz; Dora Matzke; Tim de Jong; Don van den Bergh; Alexandra Sarafoglou; Helen Steingroever; Koen Derks; Jeffrey N Rouder; Richard D Morey Journal: Psychon Bull Rev Date: 2018-02