Measurement of arterial occlusion pressure using straight and curved blood flow restriction cuffs.

Arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) is influenced by the characteristics of the cuff used to measure AOP. Doppler ultrasound was used to measure AOP of the brachial and superficial femoral arteries using straight and curved blood flow restriction cuffs in 21 males and 21 females. Vessel diameter and blood flow were evaluated as independent predictors of AOP. Overall, there were no significant differences in AOP when using the straight and curved cuffs in the brachial (129 mmHg vs. 128 mmHg) or superficial femoral artery (202 mmHg vs. 200 mmHg), respectively. Overall, AOP was greater (p < 0.05) in males than in females in the arm (135 mmHg, 123 mmHg) and leg (211 mmHg, 191 mmHg). Brachial (0.376 mm, 0.323 mm) and superficial femoral (0.547 mm, 0.486 mm) arteries were larger (p = 0.016) in males than in females, respectively. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) and arm circumference were predictive of brachial artery AOP, whereas SBP, diastolic blood pressure, thigh circumference, and vessel diameter were predictive of superficial femoral artery AOP. Straight and curved cuffs are efficacious in the measurement of AOP in the arm and leg. Differences in vessel size may contribute to sex differences in AOP but this requires further investigation.

Measurements of Arterial Occlusion Pressure Using Hand-Held Devices.

ABSTRACT: Vehrs, PR, Reynolds, S, Allen, J, Barrett, R, Blazzard, C, Burbank, T, Hart, H, Kasper, N, Lacey, R, Lopez, D, and Fellingham, GW. Measurements of arterial occlusion pressure using hand-held devices. J Strength Cond Res 38(5): 873-880, 2024-Arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) of the brachial artery was measured simultaneously using Doppler ultrasound (US), a hand-held Doppler (HHDOP), and a pulse oximeter (PO) in the dominant (DOM) and nondominant (NDOM) arms of males ( n = 21) and females ( n = 23) using continuous (CONT) and incremental (INCR) cuff inflation protocols. A mixed-model analysis of variance revealed significant ( p < 0.05) overall main effects between AOP measured using a CONT (115.7 ± 10.9) or INCR (115.0 ± 11.5) cuff inflation protocol; between AOP measured using US (116.3 ± 11.2), HHDOP (115.4 ± 11.2), and PO (114.4 ± 11.2); and between males (120.7 ± 10.6) and females (110.5 ± 9.4). The small overall difference (1.81 ± 3.3) between US and PO measures of AOP was significant ( p < 0.05), but the differences between US and HHDOP and between HHDOP and PO measures of AOP were not significant. There were no overall differences in AOP between the DOM and NDOM arms. Trial-to-trial variance in US measurements of AOP was not significant when using either cuff inflation protocol but was significant when using HHDOP and PO and a CONT cuff inflation protocol. Bland-Altman plots revealed reasonable limits of agreement for both HHDOP and PO measures of AOP. The small differences in US, HHDOP, and PO measurements of AOP when using CONT or INCR cuff inflation protocols are of minimal practical importance. The choice of cuff inflation protocol is one of personal preference. Hand-held Doppler of PO can be used to assess AOP before using blood flow restriction during exercise.