The Safety of Blood Flow Restriction Combined with Stepping Aerobic Exercise in Older Adults with Sarcopenia.

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q2 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Clinical Interventions in Aging Pub Date : 2025-08-06 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/CIA.S520775
Hui Zhang, Shulian Liu, Zhiyu Mao, Kewen Niu, Xinwei Li, Tongtong Yin, Fangfang Wang, Li Wang
{"title":"The Safety of Blood Flow Restriction Combined with Stepping Aerobic Exercise in Older Adults with Sarcopenia.","authors":"Hui Zhang, Shulian Liu, Zhiyu Mao, Kewen Niu, Xinwei Li, Tongtong Yin, Fangfang Wang, Li Wang","doi":"10.2147/CIA.S520775","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to explore the safety of blood flow restriction combined stepping aerobic exercise (BFR-SAE) using elastic and non-elastic cuffs at varying pressures in older adults with sarcopenia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Older adults with sarcopenia were selected by convenience sampling method and underwent BFR-SAE using elastic and non-elastic cuffs at 20%, 40%, and 60% limb occlusion pressure (LOP). Exercise response and adverse events were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-one participants (84.81 ± 6.19 years old) completed the tests. During the non-elastic cuffs test, 31 participants completed at 20% LOP, and 4 (12.9%) dropped from 40% to 20% LOP. At 60% LOP, 19 (61.3%) and 3 (9.7%) dropped to 40% and 20% LOP, respectively. In the elastic cuffs tests all participants completed at 20% and 40% LOP. At 60% LOP, 9 (29.0%) dropped to the interface pressure corresponding to 40% LOP. General exercise responses were lower with elastic cuffs at 40% LOP (22.6% vs 45.2%) and 60% LOP (41.9% vs 51.6%), with higher completion rate than non-elastic cuffs (40% LOP: 100% vs 87.1%; 60% LOP: 71.0% vs 29.0%). Among the results of systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP), pulse rate (P) and pulse oxygen saturation (SpO<sub>2</sub>), differences were found in BP and P at different time points (<i>P</i><0.05) within each pressure, but no significant difference between different pressures. Non-elastic cuffs caused significant increases in SBP, DBP, and P from rest, while only SBP and P showed significant increases in elastic cuffs group. Pain scores were 0 for both cuffs after tests, the adverse events rate was 1.1% and rating of perceived exertion all reached moderate-intensity of exercise.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Elastic cuffs for BFR-SAE induced milder exercise responses and higher completion rates, suggesting better safety and feasibility than non-elastic cuffs in older adults with possible sarcopenia.</p>","PeriodicalId":48841,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Interventions in Aging","volume":"20 ","pages":"1165-1179"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12335840/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Interventions in Aging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S520775","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to explore the safety of blood flow restriction combined stepping aerobic exercise (BFR-SAE) using elastic and non-elastic cuffs at varying pressures in older adults with sarcopenia.

Methods: Older adults with sarcopenia were selected by convenience sampling method and underwent BFR-SAE using elastic and non-elastic cuffs at 20%, 40%, and 60% limb occlusion pressure (LOP). Exercise response and adverse events were recorded.

Results: Thirty-one participants (84.81 ± 6.19 years old) completed the tests. During the non-elastic cuffs test, 31 participants completed at 20% LOP, and 4 (12.9%) dropped from 40% to 20% LOP. At 60% LOP, 19 (61.3%) and 3 (9.7%) dropped to 40% and 20% LOP, respectively. In the elastic cuffs tests all participants completed at 20% and 40% LOP. At 60% LOP, 9 (29.0%) dropped to the interface pressure corresponding to 40% LOP. General exercise responses were lower with elastic cuffs at 40% LOP (22.6% vs 45.2%) and 60% LOP (41.9% vs 51.6%), with higher completion rate than non-elastic cuffs (40% LOP: 100% vs 87.1%; 60% LOP: 71.0% vs 29.0%). Among the results of systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP), pulse rate (P) and pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2), differences were found in BP and P at different time points (P<0.05) within each pressure, but no significant difference between different pressures. Non-elastic cuffs caused significant increases in SBP, DBP, and P from rest, while only SBP and P showed significant increases in elastic cuffs group. Pain scores were 0 for both cuffs after tests, the adverse events rate was 1.1% and rating of perceived exertion all reached moderate-intensity of exercise.

Conclusion: Elastic cuffs for BFR-SAE induced milder exercise responses and higher completion rates, suggesting better safety and feasibility than non-elastic cuffs in older adults with possible sarcopenia.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

限制血流联合踏步有氧运动治疗老年肌肉减少症的安全性。
目的:本研究旨在探讨在不同压力下使用弹性和非弹性袖带进行血流限制联合步进有氧运动(BFR-SAE)对老年肌肉减少症患者的安全性。方法:采用方便抽样的方法,选择老年肌肉减少症患者,在20%、40%和60%肢体闭塞压力(LOP)下使用弹性和非弹性袖带进行BFR-SAE。记录运动反应和不良事件。结果:31名参与者(84.81 ± 6.19岁)完成了测试。在非弹性袖口测试中,31名参与者以20%的LOP完成,4名(12.9%)从40%的LOP下降到20%的LOP。在60% LOP时,19(61.3%)和3(9.7%)分别降至40%和20% LOP。在弹性袖口测试中,所有参与者都以20%和40%的LOP完成。在60% LOP时,9(29.0%)降至40% LOP对应的界面压力。在40% LOP (22.6% vs 45.2%)和60% LOP (41.9% vs 51.6%)时,弹性袖带的一般运动反应较低,完成率高于非弹性袖带(40% LOP: 100% vs 87.1%);60% LOP: 71.0% vs 29.0%)。在收缩压和舒张压(SBP和DBP)、脉搏率(P)和脉搏血氧饱和度(SpO2)的结果中,不同时间点的BP和P存在差异(P)。结论:弹性袖带对BFR-SAE的运动反应较轻,完成率较高,表明在可能患有肌肉减少症的老年人中,弹性袖带比非弹性袖带具有更好的安全性和可行性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Interventions in Aging
Clinical Interventions in Aging GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
2.80%
发文量
193
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Interventions in Aging, is an online, peer reviewed, open access journal focusing on concise rapid reporting of original research and reviews in aging. Special attention will be given to papers reporting on actual or potential clinical applications leading to improved prevention or treatment of disease or a greater understanding of pathological processes that result from maladaptive changes in the body associated with aging. This journal is directed at a wide array of scientists, engineers, pharmacists, pharmacologists and clinical specialists wishing to maintain an up to date knowledge of this exciting and emerging field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信