scholarly journals Blood flow restriction with different load levels in patients with knee osteoarthritis: protocol of a randomized controlled trial

Trials ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger Andrey Carvalho Jardim ◽  
Tamara Silva de Sousa ◽  
Wueyla Nicoly Nascimento dos Santos ◽  
Areolino Pena Matos ◽  
Natália Camargo Rodrigues Iosimuta

Abstract Background The effectiveness of blood flow restriction training (BFR) in elderly with knee osteoarthritis (OA) is comparable to performing high-intensity protocols (70 to 80% of 1 RM [repetition maximum]) that are known to be effective for improving the muscle strength of knee extensors, with the advantage of generating less particular rating of perceived exertion and pain immediately after training. However, despite being a promising alternative, little is known about the best way to apply the BFR, such as level of pressure and combination or not with other therapeutic modalities. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether different levels of blood flow restriction with low load (BFR + LL) and no load (BFR + rest) are non-inferior to high-intensity resistance exercise (HIRE+BFRplacebo) for pain reduction in patients with knee OA. Methods/design This clinical trial is a non-inferiority, five-arm, randomized, active-controlled, single trial which will be carried out in 165 patients of both sexes with knee OA, aged 50 years and older. Participants will be randomly allocated into 5 exercise groups (40% of BFR + LL; 80% of BFR + LL; 40% of BFR + rest; 80% BFR + rest, and HIRE+BFR placebo). A mixed linear model will be used to examine the effect of group-by-time interaction on pain intensity on the WOMAC subscale (primary outcome) and on disease severity, physical functional data, balance data, quality of life, global perceived effect scale, and muscle strength (secondary outcomes). Participants will be analyzed for intention-to-treat, and the statistical assessor blinded to the groups. The collection of outcomes 72 h after completion of the 16 weeks of interventions will be the primary measurement point. Follow-up secondary timepoints will be collected at 20, 28, 40, 52, and 64 weeks after the end of interventions, except for pain during the training, which will be measured immediately at the end of each session. Only the comparison of the primary outcome between the HIRE group with each BFR group will be analyzed in the non-inferiority framework, the other comparisons between the BFR groups for the primary outcome, and all secondary outcomes will be interpreted in the superiority framework. Discussion The results of this clinical trial can point out more clearly to ways to optimize the BFR training with the minimum of pain immediately after training, which will allow the offer of an effective and more adherent strengthening training to patients with knee OA. Trial registration Registro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clínicos, RBR-93rx9q. Registered on 23 July 2020. Version 1.0.

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 265 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Harper ◽  
Lisa Roberts ◽  
Andrew Layne ◽  
Byron Jaeger ◽  
Anna Gardner ◽  
...  

In a pilot randomized clinical trial, participants aged ≥60 years (n = 35) with physical limitations and symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA) were randomized to 12 weeks of lower-body low-load resistance training with blood-flow restriction (BFR) or moderate-intensity resistance training (MIRT) to evaluate changes in muscle strength, pain, and physical function. Four exercises were performed three times per week to volitional fatigue using 20% and 60% of one repetition maximum (1RM). Study outcomes included knee extensor strength, gait speed, Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) performance, and pain via the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index (WOMAC). Per established guidance for pilot studies, primary analyses for the trial focused on safety, feasibility, and effect sizes/95% confidence intervals of dependent outcomes to inform a fully-powered trial. Across three speeds of movement, the pre- to post-training change in maximal isokinetic peak torque was 9.96 (5.76, 14.16) Nm while the mean difference between groups (BFR relative to MIRT) was −1.87 (−10.96, 7.23) Nm. Most other directionally favored MIRT, though more spontaneous reports of knee pain were observed (n = 14) compared to BFR (n = 3). BFR may have lower efficacy than MIRT in this context—though a fully-powered trial is needed to definitively address this hypothesis.


2011 ◽  
Vol 111 (10) ◽  
pp. 2525-2533 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomohiro Yasuda ◽  
Riki Ogasawara ◽  
Mikako Sakamaki ◽  
Hayao Ozaki ◽  
Yoshiaki Sato ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 47 ◽  
pp. e4
Author(s):  
Daniel Germano Maciel ◽  
Mikhail Santos Cerqueira ◽  
Jean Arthur Mendonça Barboza ◽  
José Diego Sales do Nascimento ◽  
Wouber Hérickson de Brito Vieira

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (6) ◽  
pp. 626-633 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jefferson BN Barbosa ◽  
Tuíra O Maia ◽  
Priscila S Alves ◽  
Shirley D Bezerra ◽  
Elaine CSC Moura ◽  
...  

Introduction: Blood flow restriction training can be used as an alternative to conventional exercise in chronic kidney disease patients with indication of arteriovenous fistula. Objective: Evaluating the efficacy of blood flow restriction training in the diameter and distensibility change of the cephalic vein and the diameter and flow of the radial artery, muscle strength and forearm circumference in chronic kidney disease patients with arteriovenous fistula pre-creation. Methods: A blind randomized clinical trial consisting of 26 chronic kidney disease patients allocated into a blood flow restriction training group (blood flow restriction; n = 12) and a group without blood flow restriction training (control group; n = 14). Blood flow restriction was performed at 50% of systolic blood pressure and using 40% of handgrip strength as load for the isometric exercises in both groups. Results: An increase in the diameter of the cephalic vein in the 2 cm (p = 0.008) and 10 cm segments (p = 0.001) was observed in the control group. The diameter of the radial artery increased in all segments in the blood flow restriction group (2, 10 and 20 cm; p = 0.005, p = 0.021 and p = 0.018, respectively) and in the 10 and 20 cm segments (p = 0.017 and p = 0.026) in the control group. Handgrip strength only increased in the control group (p = 0.003). Conclusion: Physical training associated with blood flow restriction increased cephalic vein diameters in both groups and was effective in increasing the diameter of the radial artery; however, it did not demonstrate superiority over the exercise group protocol without blood flow restriction.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document