Stefanos Karanasios1,2, Charikleia Koutri3, Maria Moutzouri1,2, Sofia A Xergia4, Vasiliki Sakellari1,2, George Gioftsos1,2. 1. Physiotherapy Department, University of West Attica, Aigaleo, Greece. 2. Laboratory of Advanced Physiotherapy (LAdPhys), Physiotherapy Department, School of Health and Care Sciences, University of West Attica, Aigaleo, Greece. 3. Hellenic OMT Diploma, Athens, Greece. 4. Physiotherapy Department, University of Patras, Aigio, Greece.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The precise calculation of arterial occlusive pressure is essential to accurately prescribe individualized pressures during blood flow restriction training. Arterial occlusion pressure in the lower limb varies significantly between different body positions while similar reports for the upper limb are lacking. HYPOTHESIS: Body position has a significant effect in upper limb arterial occlusive pressure. Using cuffs with manual pump and a handheld Doppler ultrasound can be a reliable method to determine upper limb arterial blood flow restriction. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized repeated measures design. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3. METHODS: Forty-two healthy participants (age mean ± SD = 28.1 ± 7.7 years) completed measurements in supine, seated, and standing position by 3 blinded raters. A cuff with a manual pump and a handheld acoustic ultrasound were used. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test with Bonferroni correction was used to analyze differences between body positions. A within-subject coefficient of variation and an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) test were used to calculate reproducibility and reliability, respectively. RESULTS: A significantly higher upper limb arterial occlusive pressure was found in seated compared with supine position (P < 0.031) and in supine compared with standing position (P < 0.031) in all raters. An ICC of 0.894 (95% CI = 0.824-0.939, P < 0.001) was found in supine, 0.973 (95% CI = 0.955-0.985, P < 0.001) in seated, and 0.984 (95% CI = 0.973-0.991, P < 0.001) in standing position. ICC for test-retest reliability was found 0.90 (95% CI = 0.814-0.946, P < 0.001), 0.873 (95% CI = 0.762-0.93, P < 0.001), and 0.858 (95% CI = 0.737-0.923, P < 0.001) in the supine, seated, and standing position, respectively. CONCLUSION: Upper limb arterial occlusive pressure was significantly dependent on body position. The method showed excellent interrater reliability and repeatability between different days. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Prescription of individualized pressures during blood flow restriction training requires measurement of upper limb arterial occlusive pressure in the appropriate position. The use of occlusion cuffs with a manual pump and a handheld Doppler ultrasound showed excellent reliability; however, the increased measurement error compared with the differences in arterial occlusive pressure between certain positions should be carefully considered for the clinical application of the method. STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATIONS TAXONOMY (SORT): B.
BACKGROUND: The precise calculation of arterial occlusive pressure is essential to accurately prescribe individualized pressures during blood flow restriction training. Arterial occlusion pressure in the lower limb varies significantly between different body positions while similar reports for the upper limb are lacking. HYPOTHESIS: Body position has a significant effect in upper limb arterial occlusive pressure. Using cuffs with manual pump and a handheld Doppler ultrasound can be a reliable method to determine upper limb arterial blood flow restriction. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized repeated measures design. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3. METHODS: Forty-two healthy participants (age mean ± SD = 28.1 ± 7.7 years) completed measurements in supine, seated, and standing position by 3 blinded raters. A cuff with a manual pump and a handheld acoustic ultrasound were used. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test with Bonferroni correction was used to analyze differences between body positions. A within-subject coefficient of variation and an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) test were used to calculate reproducibility and reliability, respectively. RESULTS: A significantly higher upper limb arterial occlusive pressure was found in seated compared with supine position (P < 0.031) and in supine compared with standing position (P < 0.031) in all raters. An ICC of 0.894 (95% CI = 0.824-0.939, P < 0.001) was found in supine, 0.973 (95% CI = 0.955-0.985, P < 0.001) in seated, and 0.984 (95% CI = 0.973-0.991, P < 0.001) in standing position. ICC for test-retest reliability was found 0.90 (95% CI = 0.814-0.946, P < 0.001), 0.873 (95% CI = 0.762-0.93, P < 0.001), and 0.858 (95% CI = 0.737-0.923, P < 0.001) in the supine, seated, and standing position, respectively. CONCLUSION: Upper limb arterial occlusive pressure was significantly dependent on body position. The method showed excellent interrater reliability and repeatability between different days. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Prescription of individualized pressures during blood flow restriction training requires measurement of upper limb arterial occlusive pressure in the appropriate position. The use of occlusion cuffs with a manual pump and a handheld Doppler ultrasound showed excellent reliability; however, the increased measurement error compared with the differences in arterial occlusive pressure between certain positions should be carefully considered for the clinical application of the method. STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATIONS TAXONOMY (SORT): B.
Authors: André T Bezerra de Morais; Mikhail Santos Cerqueira; Rafael Moreira Sales; Taciano Rocha; Alberto Galvão de Moura Filho Journal: Clin Physiol Funct Imaging Date: 2016-01-17 Impact factor: 2.273
Authors: Brittany R Counts; Scott J Dankel; Brian E Barnett; Daeyeol Kim; J Grant Mouser; Kirsten M Allen; Robert S Thiebaud; Takashi Abe; Michael G Bemben; Jeremy P Loenneke Journal: Muscle Nerve Date: 2015-12-29 Impact factor: 3.217
Authors: Manoel E Lixandrão; Carlos Ugrinowitsch; Ricardo Berton; Felipe C Vechin; Miguel S Conceição; Felipe Damas; Cleiton A Libardi; Hamilton Roschel Journal: Sports Med Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 11.136
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: Gilberto C Laurentino; Jeremy P Loenneke; James G Mouser; Samuel L Buckner; Brittany R Counts; Scott J Dankel; Matthew B Jessee; Kevin T Mattocks; Wagner Iared; Lucas D Tavares; Emerson L Teixeira; Valmor Tricoli Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Stephen D Patterson; Luke Hughes; Stuart Warmington; Jamie Burr; Brendan R Scott; Johnny Owens; Takashi Abe; Jakob L Nielsen; Cleiton Augusto Libardi; Gilberto Laurentino; Gabriel Rodrigues Neto; Christopher Brandner; Juan Martin-Hernandez; Jeremy Loenneke Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2019-05-15 Impact factor: 4.566