TY - JOUR
T1 - Chronic hemodynamic adaptations induced by resistance training with and without blood flow restriction in adults
T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Russo, Allison
AU - Boppre, Giorjines
AU - Schmidt, Cristine
AU - Bohn, Lucimere
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 Chengdu Sport University
PY - 2023/12
Y1 - 2023/12
N2 - The purposes of this systematic review and meta-analysis of peer-reviewed literature were to examine the chronic effects of resistance training with blood flow restriction (RT-BFR) on hemodynamics, and to compare these adaptations to those induced by traditional resistance training (TRT) programs in adults (PROSPERO: Registry: CRD42022339510). A literature search was conducted across PubMed, Sports Discus, Scielo, and Web of Science databases. Two independent reviewers extracted study characteristics and blood pressure measures. Risk of bias (The Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials [RoB-2]), and the certainty of the evidence (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation [GRADE]) were used. A total of eight studies met the inclusion criteria for systolic (SBP), diastolic (DBP), and mean arterial pressure (MAP). Regarding the comparison of RT-BFR vs. non-exercise, no significant differences favoring the exercise group were observed (p > 0.05). However, when compared to TRT, RT-BFR elicited additional improvements on DBP (−3.35; 95%CI -6.00 to −0.71; I2 = 14%; z = −2.48, p = 0.01), and on MAP (−3.96; 95%CI -7.94 to 0.02; I2 = 43%; z = −1.95, p = 0.05). Results indicate that RT-BFR may elicit a decrease in DBP in comparison with TRT, but the lack of data addressing this topic makes any conclusion speculative. Future research on this topic is warranted.
AB - The purposes of this systematic review and meta-analysis of peer-reviewed literature were to examine the chronic effects of resistance training with blood flow restriction (RT-BFR) on hemodynamics, and to compare these adaptations to those induced by traditional resistance training (TRT) programs in adults (PROSPERO: Registry: CRD42022339510). A literature search was conducted across PubMed, Sports Discus, Scielo, and Web of Science databases. Two independent reviewers extracted study characteristics and blood pressure measures. Risk of bias (The Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials [RoB-2]), and the certainty of the evidence (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation [GRADE]) were used. A total of eight studies met the inclusion criteria for systolic (SBP), diastolic (DBP), and mean arterial pressure (MAP). Regarding the comparison of RT-BFR vs. non-exercise, no significant differences favoring the exercise group were observed (p > 0.05). However, when compared to TRT, RT-BFR elicited additional improvements on DBP (−3.35; 95%CI -6.00 to −0.71; I2 = 14%; z = −2.48, p = 0.01), and on MAP (−3.96; 95%CI -7.94 to 0.02; I2 = 43%; z = −1.95, p = 0.05). Results indicate that RT-BFR may elicit a decrease in DBP in comparison with TRT, but the lack of data addressing this topic makes any conclusion speculative. Future research on this topic is warranted.
KW - Blood flow restriction
KW - Blood pressure
KW - Chronic effect
KW - Strength training
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85172109741&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.smhs.2023.09.006
DO - 10.1016/j.smhs.2023.09.006
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85172109741
SN - 2666-3376
VL - 5
SP - 259
EP - 268
JO - Sports Medicine and Health Science
JF - Sports Medicine and Health Science
IS - 4
ER -