Current Trends in Blood Flow Restriction

Molly Cuffe; Joel Novak; Adnan Saithna; H Scott Strohmeyer; Emily Slaven

doi:10.3389/fphys.2022.882472

Current Trends in Blood Flow Restriction

Front Physiol. 2022 Jul 6:13:882472. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2022.882472. eCollection 2022.

Authors

Molly Cuffe¹, Joel Novak², Adnan Saithna³, H Scott Strohmeyer¹, Emily Slaven⁴

Affiliations

¹ School of Nutrition, Kinesiology, and Psychological Science, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO, United States.
² Community Health Network, Physical Therapy & Rehab Department, Noblesville, IN, United States.
³ AZBSC Orthopedics, Scottsdale, AZ, United States.
⁴ Krannert School of Physical Therapy, University of Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, United States.

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.

Keywords: BFR training; application; blood flow restriction; kaatsu training; safety.