Citherlet Tom, Willis Sarah J, Chaperon Audrey, Millet Grégoire P
Institute of Sport Sciences, Synathlon, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Denver, Denver, CO, United States.
Front Physiol. 2022 Jul 26;13:931270. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2022.931270. eCollection 2022.
The determination of the optimal occlusion level is a key parameter in blood flow restriction (BFR). This study aimed to compare the effects of elastic (BStrong) vs. nylon (Hokanson) BFR cuffs on blood flow in the lower and upper limbs. Eleven healthy participants undertook several BFR sessions with 2 different cuffs of similar width on their lower and upper limbs at different pressures [200, 250, 300, 350, and 400 mmHg for BStrong and 0, 40, and 60% of the arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) for Hokanson]. Doppler ultrasound recorded blood flows through the brachial and femoral artery at rest. With BStrong, only 350 and 400 mmHg pressures were significantly different from resting values (0% AOP). With Hokanson, both 40% and 60% of the AOP were significantly different from resting values ( < 0.05). While both cuffs elicited BFR, they failed to accurately modulate blood flow. Hokanson is appropriate for research settings while BStrong appears to be a convenient tool for practitioners due to its safety (i.e., the impossibility of completely occluding arteries) and the possibility of exercising freely detached from the pump.
确定最佳阻断水平是血流限制(BFR)中的一个关键参数。本研究旨在比较弹性(BStrong)与尼龙(Hokanson)BFR袖带对下肢和上肢血流的影响。11名健康参与者在不同压力下(BStrong为200、250、300、350和400 mmHg,Hokanson为动脉闭塞压(AOP)的0、40%和60%),使用两种宽度相似的不同袖带,在其下肢和上肢进行了多次BFR训练。多普勒超声记录静息状态下通过肱动脉和股动脉的血流。使用BStrong时,只有350和400 mmHg的压力与静息值(0% AOP)有显著差异。使用Hokanson时,AOP的40%和60%均与静息值有显著差异(<0.05)。虽然两种袖带都能引发BFR,但它们未能准确调节血流。Hokanson适用于研究环境,而BStrong因其安全性(即不可能完全闭塞动脉)以及可以在脱离泵的情况下自由运动,似乎对从业者来说是一种方便的工具。