Lima-Soares Fernanda, Pessoa Kassiana A, Torres Cabido Christian E, Lauver Jakob, Cholewa Jason, Rossi Fabrício, Zanchi Nelo E
Department of Physical Education, Federal University of Maranhão (UFMA), São Luís, Brazil.
Department of Physical Education, Federal University of Maranhão (UFMA), Laboratory of Cellular and Molecular Biology of Skeletal Muscle (LABCEMME), São Luís, Brazil.
J Strength Cond Res. 2022 Apr 1;36(4):1120-1124. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003628.
Lima-Soares, F, Pessoa, KA, Torres Cabido, CE, Lauver, J, Cholewa, J, Rossi, FE, and Zanchi, NE. Determining the arterial occlusion pressure for blood flow restriction: Pulse oximeter as a new method compared with a handheld Doppler. J Strength Cond Res 36(4): 1120-1124, 2022-In laboratorial and clinical settings, the use of Doppler ultrasound equipment has been considered the gold standard method to determine arterial occlusion pressure (AOP). However, the use of Doppler equipment is inherently limited to the technical expertise needed to perform AOP measurements. To overcome the technical difficulties of the use of Doppler equipment use in the determination of AOP, a simpler and less subjective methodology would be helpful for blood flow restriction (BFR) practitioners. In this regard, portable pulse oximetry has been largely used in clinical practice for measuring systolic pressures, as well as loss or recovery of pulse, with results similar to those observed with the use of Doppler equipment. For such purposes, the AOP from young male and female subjects was evaluated after different body positions (standing, seated, and supine positions). Loss of capillary blood flow or AOP was readily determined by simple visual inspection for the pulse oximeter and loss of sound for the Doppler equipment. The results presented herein strongly suggest the use of the portable pulse oximetry equipment as reliable, when compared with the handheld Doppler (seated k = 0.962, standing k = 0.845, and supine k = 0.963 and seated rs = 0.980, standing rs = 0.958, and supine rs = 0.955). Because AOP measurement by pulse oximetry is relatively easier to perform and financially more accessible than handheld Doppler equipment, BFR practitioners may benefit from this new methodology to measure AOP, thus determining individualized restriction pressures.
利马 - 索阿雷斯,F、佩索阿,KA、托雷斯·卡比多,CE、劳弗,J、乔莱瓦,J、罗西,FE和赞奇,NE。确定血流限制的动脉闭塞压:与手持式多普勒相比,脉搏血氧仪作为一种新方法。《力量与体能研究杂志》36(4): 1120 - 1124,2022年 - 在实验室和临床环境中,使用多普勒超声设备一直被认为是确定动脉闭塞压(AOP)的金标准方法。然而,多普勒设备的使用本质上局限于进行AOP测量所需的技术专长。为了克服在确定AOP时使用多普勒设备的技术困难,一种更简单且主观性更小的方法对血流限制(BFR)从业者会有所帮助。在这方面,便携式脉搏血氧仪已在临床实践中广泛用于测量收缩压以及脉搏的消失或恢复,其结果与使用多普勒设备观察到的结果相似。为此目的,在不同体位(站立、坐着和仰卧位)后评估了年轻男性和女性受试者的AOP。通过简单的目视检查脉搏血氧仪来确定毛细血管血流的消失或AOP,通过多普勒设备声音的消失来确定。本文给出的结果强烈表明,与手持式多普勒相比,便携式脉搏血氧仪设备是可靠的(坐着时k = 0.962,站立时k = 0.845,仰卧时k = 0.963;坐着时rs = 0.980,站立时rs = 0.958,仰卧时rs = 0.955)。由于通过脉搏血氧仪测量AOP比手持式多普勒设备相对更容易操作且成本更低,BFR从业者可能会从这种测量AOP的新方法中受益,从而确定个性化的限制压力。