Dataset Information

Low-load blood flow restriction strength training in patients with COPD: a randomised single-blind pilot study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness of lower limb low-load blood flow restriction training (LL-BFRT) with high-load strength training (HL-ST) as part of an outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation programme on leg strength in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Methods

Participants were randomised to LL-BFRT or HL-ST (24 sessions). LL-BFRT was done at 30% 1-repetition maximum (1-RM) with 70% arterial occlusion pressure. HL-ST was done at 70% 1-RM. Primary outcome was isometric strength of knee extensors and flexors. Secondary outcomes were 1-RM, functional exercise capacity, physical activity, symptom burden and health-related quality of life. Perceptions of dyspnoea and leg fatigue were recorded after every exercise. We compared groups with t-tests.

Results

We included 30 participants (13 women, 17 men, 64 (9) years, forced expiratory volume in 1 s 47 (18)% pred.), 24 completed the study. Isometric knee extensor strength improved to a clinically relevant degree in both legs in both groups (LL-BFRT: right leg 9 (20) Nm, left leg 10 (18) Nm; HL-ST: right leg 15 (26) Nm, left leg 16 (30) Nm, data are mean (SD)), without statistically significant or clinically relevant between-group differences (right leg mean difference= -6.4, 95% CI= -13.20 to 25.92 Nm, left leg mean difference= -5.6, 95% CI= -15.44 to 26.55 Nm). 1 min sit-to-stand test performance improved to a clinically relevant degree only in the LL-BFRT group (4 (4) vs 1 (5) repetitions). Interestingly, physical activity improved to a clinically relevant degree only in the LL-BFRT group (1506 (2441) vs -182 (1971) steps/day). LL-BFRT lowered perceived in-exercise dyspnoea and increased leg fatigue compared with HL-ST in the initial 12 trainings.

Conclusion

In patients with stable COPD undergoing outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation, LL-BFRT was not superior to HL-ST in improving leg strength. LL-BFRT led to similar strength gains as HL-ST while reducing perceptions of dyspnoea in the initial training phase.

Trial registration number

NCT04151771.

SUBMITTER: Kohlbrenner D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10958309 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Low-load blood flow restriction strength training in patients with COPD: a randomised single-blind pilot study.

Kohlbrenner Dario D Kuhn Manuel M Manettas Anastasios A Aregger Céline C Peterer Matthias M Greco Nicola N Sievi Noriane A NA Clarenbach Christian C

Thorax 20240315 4

<h4>Objective</h4>The objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness of lower limb low-load blood flow restriction training (LL-BFRT) with high-load strength training (HL-ST) as part of an outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation programme on leg strength in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).<h4>Methods</h4>Participants were randomised to LL-BFRT or HL-ST (24 sessions). LL-BFRT was done at 30% 1-repetition maximum (1-RM) with 70% arterial occlusion pressure. HL-ST wa ...[more]

PMID: 38129116

Similar Datasets

Project description:Purpose: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, blood flow restriction (BFR) with low-load resistance training (BFR-RT) was compared with high-load resistance training (HL-RT) on muscle strength in healthy adults. The characteristics of cuff pressure suitable for muscle strength gain were also investigated by analyzing the effects of applying different occlusion pressure prescriptions and cuff inflation patterns on muscle strength gain. Methods: Literature search was conducted using PubMed, Ovid Medline, ProQuest, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Scopus databases to identify literature published until May 2023. Studies reporting the effects of BFR-RT interventions on muscle strength gain were compared with those of HL-RT. The risk of bias in the included trials was assessed using the Cochrane tool, followed by a meta-analysis to calculate the combined effect. Subgroup analysis was performed to explore the beneficial variables. Results: Nineteen articles (42 outcomes), with a total of 458 healthy adults, were included in the meta-analysis. The combined effect showed higher muscle strength gain with HL-RT than with BFR-RT (p = 0.03, SMD = -0.16, 95% CI: -0.30 to -0.01). The results of the subgroup analysis showed that the BFR-RT applied with incremental and individualized pressure achieved muscle strength gain similar to the HL-RT (p = 0.8, SMD = -0.05, 95% CI: -0.44 to 0.34; p = 0.68, SMD = -0.04, 95% CI: -0.23 to 0.15), but muscle strength gain obtained via BFR-RT applied with absolute pressure was lower than that of HL-RT (p < 0.05, SMD = -0.45, 95% CI: -0.71 to -0.19). Furthermore, muscle strength gain obtained by BFR-RT applied with intermittent pressure was similar to that obtained by HL-RT (p = 0.88, SMD = -0.02, 95% CI: -0.27 to 0.23), but muscle strength gain for BFR-RT applied with continuous pressure showed a less prominent increase than that for HL-RT (p < 0.05, SMD = -0.3, 95% CI: -0.48 to -0.11). Conclusion: In general, HL-RT produces superior muscle strength gains than BFR-RT. However, the application of individualized, incremental, and intermittent pressure exercise protocols in BFR-RT elicits comparable muscle strength gains to HL-RT. Our findings indicate that cuff pressure characteristics play a significant role in establishing a BFR-RT intervention program for enhancing muscle strength in healthy adults. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails; Identifier: PROSPERO (CRD42022364934).

Project description:Resistance-based blood flow restriction training (BFRT) improves skeletal muscle strength and size. Unlike heavy-load resistance training (HLRT), there is debate as to whether strength adaptations following BFRT interventions can be primarily attributed to concurrent muscle hypertrophy, as the magnitude of hypertrophy is often minor. The present study aimed to investigate the effect of 7 weeks of BFRT and HLRT on muscle strength and hypertrophy. The expression of protein growth markers from muscle biopsy samples was also measured. Male participants were allocated to moderately heavy-load training (HL; n = 9), low-load BFRT (LL + BFR; n = 8), or a control (CON; n = 9) group to control for the effect of time. HL and LL + BFR completed 21 training sessions (3 d.week-1) comprising bilateral knee extension and knee flexion exercises (HL = 70% one-repetition maximum (1-RM), LL + BFR = 20% 1-RM + blood flow restriction). Bilateral knee extension and flexion 1-RM strength were assessed, and leg muscle CSA was measured via peripheral quantitative computed tomography. Protein growth markers were measured in vastus lateralis biopsy samples taken pre- and post the first and last training sessions. Biopsy samples were also taken from CON at the same time intervals as HL and LL + BFR. Knee extension 1-RM strength increased in HL (19%) and LL + BFR (19%) but not CON (2%; p < 0.05). Knee flexion 1-RM strength increased similarly between all groups, as did muscle CSA (50% femur length; HL = 2.2%, LL + BFR = 3.0%, CON = 2.1%; TIME main effects). 4E-BP1 (Thr37/46) phosphorylation was lower in HL and LL + BFR immediately post-exercise compared with CON in both sessions (p < 0.05). Expression of other growth markers was similar between groups (p > 0.05). Overall, BFRT and HLRT improved muscle strength and size similarly, with comparable changes in intramuscular protein growth marker expression, both acutely and chronically, suggesting the activation of similar anabolic pathways. However, the low magnitude of muscle hypertrophy was not significantly different to the non-training control suggesting that strength adaptation following 7 weeks of BFRT is not driven by hypertrophy, but rather neurological adaptation.

Project description:Background: There is growing evidence to support the use of low-load blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) exercise in musculoskeletal rehabilitation. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of low-load blood flow restricted (LL-BFR) training versus conventional high mechanical load resistance training (RT) on the clinical outcomes of patient's undergoing inpatient multidisciplinary team (MDT) rehabilitation. Study design: A single-blind randomized controlled study. Methods: Twenty-eight lower-limb injured adults completed a 3-week intensive MDT rehabilitation program. Participants were randomly allocated into a conventional RT (3-days/week) or twice-daily LL-BFR training group. Outcome measurements were taken at baseline and 3-weeks and included quadriceps and total thigh muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) and volume, muscle strength [five repetition maximum (RM) leg press and knee extension test, isometric hip extension], pain and physical function measures (Y-balance test, multistage locomotion test-MSLT). Results: A two-way repeated measures analysis of variance revealed no significant differences between groups for any outcome measure post-intervention (p > 0.05). Both groups showed significant improvements in mean scores for muscle CSA/volume, 5-RM leg press, and 5-RM knee extension (p < 0.01) after treatment. LL-BFR group participants also demonstrated significant improvements in MSLT and Y-balance scores (p < 0.01). The Pain scores during training reduced significantly over time in the LL-BFR group (p = 0.024), with no adverse events reported during the study. Conclusion: Comparable improvements in muscle strength and hypertrophy were shown in LL-BFR and conventional training groups following in-patient rehabilitation. The LL-BFR group also achieved significant improvements in functional capacity. LL-BFR training is a rehabilitation tool that has the potential to induce positive adaptations in the absence of high mechanical loads and therefore could be considered a treatment option for patients suffering significant functional deficits for whom conventional loaded RT is contraindicated. Trial Registration: ISRCTN Reference: ISRCTN63585315, dated 25 April 2017.

Project description:Strength training responses are influenced by sets, repetitions, and mechanical load, whereas Blood Flow Restriction (BFR) training adds the variable of temporarily restricting blood flow via a tourniquet. This has intensified scientific discussions regarding the vascular responses and thereby safety of the BFR method. To address these concerns, we investigated intravascular pressure changes during low-load (LL-RT), low-load with BFR (LL-BFR-RT), and high-load (HL-RT) exercise. Ten healthy men (26.8 ± 4.59 years) performed unilateral biceps curls to failure in a randomized cross-over design: (1) LL-RT (30% 1RM), (2) LL-BFR-RT (30% 1RM, 50% LOP), and (3) HL-RT (75% 1RM). Total workload was significantly higher in LL-RT (692 ± 251 kg) compared to LL-BFR-RT (378 ± 58.7 kg) and HL-RT (327 ± 65.1 kg, p < 0.001). In terms of mean values, LL-BFR-RT resulted in higher diastolic and mean arterial pressures during rest periods between sets compared to other conditions (p ≤ 0.02). Both LL-RT and LL-BFR-RT led to longer durations spent at increased diastolic (above 90 mmHg, LL-RT: ~419 s vs. LL-BFR-RT: ~356 s vs. Hl-RT: ~122 s), systolic (above 140 mmHg, LL-RT: ~437 s vs. LL-BFR-RT: ~336 s vs. HL-RT: ~199 s), and mean arterial pressures (above 107 mmHg, LL-RT: ~451 s vs. LL-BFR-RT: ~384 s vs. HL-RT: ~168 s) compared to HL-RT (p ≤ 0.028). Relative to total exercise time, LL-BFR-RT resulted in higher proportion of time spent at elevated diastolic (above 90 mmHg, LL-RT: ~56.5% vs. LL-BFR-RT: ~68.7% vs. Hl-RT: ~33.5%) and mean arterial pressures (above 107 mmHg, LL-RT: ~60.8% vs. LL-BFR-RT: ~74.0% vs. HL-RT: ~45.7%) compared to HL-RT (p ≤ 0.034). Peripheral venous pressure was significantly higher in LL-BFR-RT compared to other conditions (p < 0.001), with both absolute and relative time spent at higher pressures (above 75 mmHg, LL-RT: ~57.0 s and ~ 9.12% vs. LL-BFR-RT: ~424 s and ~ 81.7% vs. HL-RT: ~36.0 s and ~ 8.99%, p ≤ 0.002). Our results suggest that BFR training performed to failure imposes greater arterial and venous stress in the exercising limb compared to high-load training without BFR, particularly due to prolonged exposure to elevated pressures. Further research is needed to assess the potential risks of elevated local arterial and venous pressure responses by frequent BFR use, particularly in populations with pre-existing medical conditions.

Project description:"Nonspecific shoulder pain" encompasses various non-traumatic musculoskeletal shoulder disorders, diverging from diagnostic terminologies that refer to precise tissue-oriented clinical diagnosis. Blood flow restriction (BFR) training, involving partial arterial inflow and complete venous outflow restriction, has exhibited acute hypoalgesic effects primarily in healthy populations by increasing their pain thresholds. This study aims to examine whether a single BFR session with low-load exercises can alleviate pain perception among nonspecific shoulder pain patients. Conducted as a single-blind crossover randomised clinical trial, 48 adults (age range: 18 to 40) presenting with nonspecific shoulder pain will partake in two trial sessions. Random assignment will place participants into BFR or sham BFR groups and ask them to perform one exercise with BFR. Subsequently, participants will complete a shoulder girdle loading regimen comprising six exercises. The second session will involve participants switching treatment groups. Pain pressure thresholds (PPTs), shoulder pain and disability via the shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI), maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) of shoulder external rotators, pain during active abduction, and peak pain during shoulder external rotation will be evaluated using the numeric pain rating scale (NPRS). Immediate post-exercise assessments will include patient-perceived pain changes using the global rating of change scale (GROC) and participant-rated perceived exertion (RPE), employing a modified Borg's scale (Borg CR10) post-BFR or sham BFR exercise session. Each session will encompass three assessment periods, and a combination of mixed-effect models and descriptive statistics will underpin the analysis. This protocol was approved by Cyprus National Bioethics Committee (ΕΕΒΚ/2023/48), and was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (Registration number: NCT05956288). Conclusion: The anticipated outcomes of this study illuminated the acute effects of BFR training on pain perception within the context of nonspecific shoulder pain, potentially advancing strategies for managing pain intensity using BFR techniques.

Project description:BackgroundPatellar instability is a common and understudied condition that disproportionally affects athletes and military personnel. The rate of post-traumatic osteoarthritis that develops following a patellar dislocation can be up to 50% of individuals 5-15 years after injury. Conservative treatment is the standard of care for patellar instability however, there are no evidence-informed rehabilitation guidelines in the scientific literature. The purpose of this study is to assess the effectiveness of blood-flow restriction training (BFRT) for patellar instability. Our hypotheses are that this strategy will improve patient-reported outcomes and accelerate restoration of symmetric strength and knee biomechanics necessary to safely return to activity.Methods/designThis is a parallel-group, superiority, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial at the University of Kentucky, sports medicine clinic that aims to recruit 78 patients with acute patellar dislocations randomly allocated into two groups: (1) sham BFRT and (2) BFRT. Both groups will receive the current standard of care physical therapy 3 times per week for up to 9 weeks. Physical therapy sessions will consist of typical standard of care treatment followed by BFRT or sham BFRT. Primary outcomes include the Norwich Patellar Instability Scale, quadriceps strength, and imaging and biochemical biomarkers of cartilage degradation.DiscussionThe current standard of care for non-operative treatment of patellar instability is highly variable does not adequately address the mechanisms necessary to restore lower extremity function and protect the long-term health of articular cartilage following injury. This proposed novel intervention strategy uses an easily implementable therapy to evaluate if BFRT significantly improves patient-reported outcomes, function, and joint health over the first year of recovery.Trial registrationBlood Flow Restriction Training, Aspiration, and Intraarticular Normal Saline (BRAINS) NCT04554212 . Registered on 18 September 2020.

Dataset Information

Low-load blood flow restriction strength training in patients with COPD: a randomised single-blind pilot study.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration number

Publications

Low-load blood flow restriction strength training in patients with COPD: a randomised single-blind pilot study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets