Current Trends in Blood Flow Restriction

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to explore how individuals in the United States of America applied BFR/KAATSU devices and administered BFR/KAATSU training. In addition, the study sought to examine safety topics related to BFR/KAATSU training.Methods: The study was completed using survey research. Subjects were recruited through Facebook, email, and word of mouth. The survey was developed, piloted, and finally deployed March 22, 2021-April 21, 2021.Results: In total, 148 consented to the research; 108 completed the survey, and of those 108, 70 indicated current use with BFR/KAATSU equipment. Professions represented included athletic training, personal training, physical therapy, and strength and conditioning. Among those currently using BFR/KAATSU training (n = 70), the following results were found. The most common devices used were inflatable devices (n = 43, 61.4%). Education completed prior to device administration was formal (n = 39, 55.7%) and/or self-directed (n = 37, 52.9%). Barriers were faced by 29 (41.4%) when trying to enact training. Techniques and parameters varied during application. Screening processes were used (n = 50, 71.4%) prior to training. The devices were used to determine restrictive pressure (n = 31, 44.3%), and a supine position was used most when determining initial restrictive pressure (n = 33, 47.1%). For subsequent restrictive pressure measurements, respondents repeated the same method used initially (n = 38, 54.3%). Workload was often defined as the length of time under tension/load (n = 22, 31.4%) and exercise was directly supervised (n = 52, 74.3%). Adverse effects included bruising, lightheadedness, and cramping (n = 15, 21.4%). The devices have also been applied on those with pathology (n = 16, 22.9%).Conclusion: Those using blood flow restriction/KAATSU devices came from several professions and used an assortment of devices for BFR/KAATSU training. Individuals applied devices using a variety of parameters on populations for which efficacy has and has not been well defined.

Current Implementation and Barriers to Using Blood Flow Restriction Training: Insights From a Survey of Allied Health Practitioners

“…The most common barriers reported were a lack of BFR equipment, insufficient education on BFR, and safety concerns, which confers with previous research (6,18). Practitioners cannot use BFR if they have no access to equipment (60.2% of responders), often related to a lack of funding (28.4%).…”

“…Furthermore, as safety concerns are recognized as a barrier to prescribing BFR exercise (27), it is also important to understand factors that prevent allied health practitioners from using this intervention. Preliminary research indicates that the barriers to using BFR include equipment cost, lack of training, lack of resources, and concerns with clinical efficacy and safety (6,18). However, these preliminary surveys were not focused on using BFR specifically for clinical or older cohorts, have not reported practitioner perceptions on how these barriers could be alleviated, and only included practitioners in the United States.…”

Clinic and Home-Based Exercise with Blood Flow Restriction Resolves Thigh Muscle Atrophy after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with the Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Autograft: A Case Report

“…The Rate of Perceived Tightness (RPT) scale was used to progress torniquet pressure from 180 mmHg to a 7–8/10 RPT over the course of 2 rehabilitation sessions ( Figure 2 ) [ 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 ]; the athlete reported a 7–8/10 RPT at 210 mmHg, which was the torniquet pressure applied throughout the remainder of his clinic-based rehabilitation period. To assess blood flow distal to the tourniquet, a vascular doppler was applied to the tibialis posterior artery to confirm that arterial blood flow was maintained at rest ( Figure 3 a) [ 79 ], and a great toe capillary refill time < 3 s was used as an indirect measure of incomplete vascular occlusion (i.e., <100% arterial occlusion with the tourniquet inflated to exercising pressure) ( Figure 3 c–e) [ 81 , 82 ].…”

Autoregulated and Non-Autoregulated Blood Flow Restriction on Acute Arterial Stiffness

“…As BFR becomes more widely implemented in different practice settings [1], the availability of BFR equipment for consumer purchase has increased. However, there is a dearth of research available on the different types of BFR devices used, as well as features marketed to enhance its safety, tolerability, and/or efficacy during application [20].…”

“…Low-load resistance exercise with blood flow restriction (BFR) is becoming increasingly employed in rehabilitation 1 because of the similar musculoskeletal benefits it confers compared to traditional heavy load strength training, including muscle hypertrophy 2 and strength 3 . However, despite BFR’s growth as an alternative exercise approach, there are still concerns regarding its safety profile 4 5 .…”