scholarly journals Influence and reliability of lower-limb arterial occlusion pressure at different body positions

PeerJ ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. e4697 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luke Hughes ◽  
Owen Jeffries ◽  
Mark Waldron ◽  
Ben Rosenblatt ◽  
Conor Gissane ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Supine Position ◽  
Lower Limb ◽  
Body Position ◽  
Arterial Occlusion ◽  
Standing Position ◽  
Healthy Individuals ◽  
Occlusion Pressure ◽  
Flow Restriction ◽  
Subsequent Application ◽  
Arterial Occlusion Pressure

Background Total arterial occlusive pressure (AOP) is used to prescribe pressures for surgery, blood flow restriction exercise (BFRE) and ischemic preconditioning (IPC). AOP is often measured in a supine position; however, the influence of body position on AOP measurement is unknown and may influence level of occlusion in different positions during BFR and IPC. The aim of this study was therefore to investigate the influence of body position on AOP. Methods Fifty healthy individuals (age = 29 ± 6 y) underwent AOP measurements on the dominant lower-limb in supine, seated and standing positions in a randomised order. AOP was measured automatically using the Delfi Personalised Tourniquet System device, with each measurement separated by 5 min of rest. Results Arterial occlusive pressure was significantly lower in the supine position compared to the seated position (187.00 ± 32.5 vs 204.00 ± 28.5 mmHg, p < 0.001) and standing position (187.00 ± 32.5 vs 241.50 ± 49.3 mmHg, p < 0.001). AOP was significantly higher in the standing position compared to the seated position (241.50 ± 49.3 vs 204.00 ± 28.5 mmHg, p < 0.001). Discussion Arterial occlusive pressure measurement is body position dependent, thus for accurate prescription of occlusion pressure during surgery, BFR and IPC, AOP should be measured in the position intended for subsequent application of occlusion.

The Effect of Body Position and the Reliability of Upper Limb Arterial Occlusion Pressure Using a Handheld Doppler Ultrasound for Blood Flow Restriction Training

2021 ◽  
pp. 194173812110438
Author(s):  
Stefanos Karanasios ◽  
Charikleia Koutri ◽  
Maria Moutzouri ◽  
Sofia A. Xergia ◽  
Vasiliki Sakellari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Flow ◽  
Doppler Ultrasound ◽  
Upper Limb ◽  
Body Position ◽  
Arterial Occlusion ◽  
Standing Position ◽  
Blood Flow Restriction ◽  
Occlusion Pressure ◽  
Flow Restriction ◽  
Arterial Occlusion Pressure

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.

Determining the Arterial Occlusion Pressure for Blood Flow Restriction

2020 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernanda Lima-Soares ◽  
Kassiana A. Pessoa ◽  
Christian E. Torres Cabido ◽  
Jakob Lauver ◽  
Jason Cholewa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Flow ◽  
Arterial Occlusion ◽  
Blood Flow Restriction ◽  
Occlusion Pressure ◽  
Flow Restriction ◽  
Arterial Occlusion Pressure

Effects of Different Levels of Blood Flow Restriction on Arterial Occlusion Pressure and Perceptual Responses

2017 ◽  
Vol 49 (5S) ◽  
pp. 717-718
Author(s):  
Kevin T. Mattocks ◽  
Matthew B. Jessee ◽  
Brittany R. Counts ◽  
Samuel L. Buckner ◽  
J Grant Mouser ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Flow ◽  
Arterial Occlusion ◽  
Blood Flow Restriction ◽  
Occlusion Pressure ◽  
Flow Restriction ◽  
Arterial Occlusion Pressure ◽  
Different Levels

The Effect of Increasing Blood Flow Restriction Pressure When the Contractions Are Already Occlusive

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Vito V. Nucci ◽  
David H. Jarrett ◽  
Catherine M. Palmo ◽  
Brenna M. Razzano ◽  
Mehmet Uygur ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Flow ◽  
Arterial Occlusion ◽  
Bayes Factors ◽  
Muscular Endurance ◽  
Occlusion Pressure ◽  
Task Failure ◽  
Force Steadiness ◽  
Flow Restriction ◽  
Arterial Occlusion Pressure ◽  
Blood Flow Restricted Exercise

Context: Blood flow restricted exercise involves the use of external pressure to enhance fatigue and augment exercise adaptations. The mechanisms by which blood flow restricted exercise limits muscular endurance are not well understood. Objective: To determine how increasing blood flow restriction pressure impacts local muscular endurance, discomfort, and force steadiness when the contractions are already occlusive. Design: Within-participant, repeated-measures crossover design. Setting: University laboratory. Patients: A total of 22 individuals (13 males and 9 females). Intervention: Individuals performed a contraction at 30% of maximal isometric elbow flexion force for as long as possible. One arm completed the contraction with 100% of arterial occlusion pressure applied, while the other arm had 150% of arterial occlusion pressure applied. At the end of the protocol, individuals were asked to rate their perceived discomfort. Main Outcome Measures: Time to task failure, discomfort, and force steadiness. Results: Individuals had a longer time to task failure when performing the 100% arterial occlusion condition compared with the 150% arterial occlusion pressure condition (time to task failure = 82.4 vs 70.8 s; Bayes factors = 5.77). There were no differences in discomfort between the 100% and 150% conditions (median discomfort = 5.5 vs 6; Bayes factors = 0.375) nor were there differences in force steadiness (SD of force output 3.16 vs 3.31 N; Bayes factors = 0.282). Conclusion: The results of the present study suggest that, even when contractions are already occlusive, increasing the restriction pressure reduces local muscle endurance but does not impact discomfort or force steadiness. This provides an indication that mechanisms other than the direct alteration of blood flow are contributing to the increased fatigue with added restrictive pressure. Future studies are needed to examine neural mechanisms that may explain this finding.

scholarly journals Differences in Femoral Artery Occlusion Pressure between Sexes and Dominant and Non-Dominant Legs

Medicina ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 57 (9) ◽  
pp. 863
Author(s):  
Nicole D. Tafuna’i ◽  
Iain Hunter ◽  
Aaron W. Johnson ◽  
Gilbert W. Fellingham ◽  
Pat R. Vehrs
Keyword(s):  
Blood Flow ◽  
Femoral Artery ◽  
Superficial Femoral Artery ◽  
Arterial Occlusion ◽  
Artery Occlusion ◽  
Blood Flow Restriction ◽  
Occlusion Pressure ◽  
Flow Restriction ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Arterial Occlusion Pressure

Background and Objectives: Blood flow restriction during low-load exercise stimulates similar muscle adaptations to those normally observed with higher loads. Differences in the arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) between limbs and between sexes are unclear. We compared the AOP of the superficial femoral artery in the dominant and non-dominant legs, and the relationship between blood flow and occlusion pressure in 35 (16 males, 19 females) young adults. Materials and Methods: Using ultrasound, we measured the AOP of the superficial femoral artery in both legs. Blood flow at occlusion pressures ranging from 0% to 100% of the AOP was measured in the dominant leg. Results: There was a significant difference in the AOP between males and females in the dominant (230 ± 41 vs. 191 ± 27 mmHg; p = 0.002) and non-dominant (209 ± 37 vs. 178 ± 21 mmHg; p = 0.004) legs, and between the dominant and non-dominant legs in males (230 ± 41 vs. 209 ± 37 mmHg; p = 0.009) but not females (191 ± 27 vs. 178 ± 21 mmHg; p = 0.053), respectively. Leg circumference was the most influential independent predictor of the AOP. There was a linear relationship between blood flow (expressed as a percentage of unoccluded blood flow) and occlusion pressure (expressed as a percentage of AOP). Conclusions: Arterial occlusion pressure is not always greater in the dominant leg or the larger leg. Practitioners should measure AOP in both limbs to determine if occlusion pressures used during exercise should be limb specific. Occlusion pressures used during blood flow restriction exercise should be chosen carefully.

scholarly journals Intraocular Pressure Measurements in Standing Position with a Rebound Tonometer

Medicina ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 55 (10) ◽  
pp. 701 ◽  
Author(s):  
De Bernardo ◽  
Borrelli ◽  
Cembalo ◽  
Rosa
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Pressure ◽  
Supine Position ◽  
Central Corneal Thickness ◽  
Body Position ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Standing Position ◽  
Pressure Measurements ◽  
Healthy Individuals ◽  
Lying Down ◽  
Axial Eye Length

Background and Objectives: It has been established that body position can play an important role in intraocular pressure (IOP) fluctuation. IOP has been previously shown to increase significantly when lying down, relative to sitting; this type of investigation has not been extensively reported for the standing (ST) position. Therefore, this study aims to look for eventual significant IOP changes while ST, sitting, and lying down. Materials and Methods: An Icare PRO was used to measure the IOP of 120 eyes of 60 healthy individuals, with age ranging from 21 to 55 years (mean 29.22 ± 9.12 years), in sitting, supine and ST positions; IOP was measured again, 5 minutes after standing (ST-5m). Results: Mean IOP difference between sitting and ST position was 0.39 ± 1.93 mmHg (95% CI: 0.04 to 0.74 mmHg) (p = 0.027); between sitting and ST-5m, it was −0.48 ± 1.79 mmHg (95% CI: −0.8 to −0.16 mmHg) (p = 0.004); between the sitting and supine position, it was −1.16±1.9 mmHg (95% CI: −1.5 to −0.82 mmHg) (p < 0.001); between the supine and ST position, it was 1.55 ± 2.04 mmHg (95% CI: 1.18 to 1.92 mmHg) (p < 0.001); between supine and ST-5m, it was 0.68 ± 1.87 mmHg (95% CI: 0.34 to 1.02 mmHg) (p < 0.001); and between ST-5m and ST, it was 0.94 ± 1.95 mmHg (95% CI: 0.58 to 1.29 mmHg) (p < 0.001). Mean axial eye length was 24.45 mm (95% CI: 24.22 to 24.69 mm), and mean central corneal thickness was 535.30 μm (95% CI: 529.44 to 541.19 μm). Conclusion: Increased IOP in the ST-5m position suggests that IOP measurements should be performed in this position too. The detection of higher IOP values in the ST-5m position than in the sitting one, may explain the presence of glaucoma damage or progression in apparently normal-tension or compensated patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document