How does blood flow restriction training have been applied in Brazil?

Objective: The aim of the present study was to analyze how the blood flow restriction (BFR) training has been used by professionals in Brazil, focusing on the user's profile, control of training variables and the rate of occurrence of adverse effects. Methods: Eighty-six health professionals with experience in BFR training were interviewed through a digital questionnaire prepared by the authors containing 17 questions about the characteristics of using the method. Results: BFR training has been used in Brazil for the past 5 years, mainly by Physical Education professionals who attend healthy adults, athletes and elderly people with several objectives. Most of the professionals seem to follow specific scientific recommendations for the BFR training prescription, except for a small portion of participants, especially regarding pressure control to BFR. Low-severity immediate adverse effects associated with the method were observed at reasonable rates and no serious effects were reported. Conclusion: Since a small number of professionals reported inattention to scientific recommendations for controlling this variable, these adverse effects may be associated with inadequate control of vascular occlusion pressure.Key-words: hypoxia, physical training, rehabilitation, therapeutic occlusion, vascular occlusion devices.

Download Full-text

The blood flow restriction training effect in knee osteoarthritis people: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Clinical Rehabilitation ◽

10.1177/0269215520943650 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 34 (11) ◽

pp. 1378-1390

Author(s):

João Vitor Ferlito ◽

Samantha Angelica Pasa Pecce ◽

Lucas Oselame ◽

Thiago De Marchi

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Blood Flow ◽

Knee Osteoarthritis ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Descriptive Analysis ◽

Blood Flow Restriction ◽

Flow Restriction ◽

Knee Strength ◽

Mean Differences ◽

Therapeutic Occlusion

Objective: To synthesize evidence on the effects of blood flow restriction (BFR) comparing with high (HLT) and low load (LLT), and on the influence of different forms of application in individuals with knee osteoarthritis. Data sources: The CENTRAL, PEDro, PubMed and BVS, which include Lilacs, Medline and SciELO, until April 2020. Review methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials used the PRISMA guidelines, whose main keywords were: Therapeutic Occlusion, Resistance Training, and Knee Osteoarthritie, blood flow restriction and Kaatsu training. Method quality was evaluated with the PEDro scale. When studies demonstrated homogeneity on outcome measures, the mean differences or standardized mean differences with 95% confidence interval were calculated and pooled in a meta-analysis for pooled synthesis. Results: Five articles were eligible in this review with moderate to low risk bias. Our results, showed no difference between BFR and HLT in knee strength (SMD = 0.00, 95% CI, –0.54 to 0.54, P = 1.00), function (SMD = −0.20, 95% CI, –0.45 to 0.06, P = 0.13), pain and volume. But, when compared BFR and LLT, the descriptive analysis demonstrated significant results in favor BFR to muscle strength (71.4% of measurement) and volume (MD = 1.66, 95% CI, 0.93 to 2.38, P < 0.00001), but not in pain or function. Conclusion: BFR can be used as a strategy in the rehabilitation of osteoarthritis due to gains in strength and volume with low mechanical stress. However, its application must be safe and individualized, since they can attenuate the stimuli offered by BFR.

Download Full-text