ETD

Current Trends in Blood Flow Restriction

Public Deposited

MLA citation style (9th ed.)

Cuffe, Molly. Current Trends In Blood Flow Restriction. . 0629. uindy.hykucommons.org/concern/etds/f721358a-7a65-4c44-81f5-efb1d32248d2?locale=en.

APA citation style (7th ed.)

C. Molly. (0629). Current Trends in Blood Flow Restriction. https://uindy.hykucommons.org/concern/etds/f721358a-7a65-4c44-81f5-efb1d32248d2?locale=en

Chicago citation style (CMOS 17, author-date)

Cuffe, Molly. Current Trends In Blood Flow Restriction. 0629. https://uindy.hykucommons.org/concern/etds/f721358a-7a65-4c44-81f5-efb1d32248d2?locale=en.

Note: These citations are programmatically generated and may be incomplete.

Creator
Abstract
  • Background/Significance: Blood flow restriction (BFR) involves the application of a device to
    alter blood flow to an extremity. Several types of devices can facilitate blood flow restriction,
    and safe application can limit adverse effects. 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 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 of BFR/KAATSU
    equipment. Professions represented included athletic training, personal training, physical therapy,
    and strength and conditioning. 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 including
    bruising, lightheadedness, and cramping were seen (n=15, 21.4%). The devices have been
    applied on those with pathology (n=16, 22.9%). Conclusions: Those using blood flow
    restriction/KAATSU training came from a variety of professions and used a variety 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.

Keyword
Date
Type
Rights
Degree
  • Doctor of Health Science

Level
  • Doctoral

Discipline
  • Health Science

Grantor
  • University of Indianapolis

Committee member
  • Emily Slaven, PT, PhD

  • Joel Novak, PT, DPT, CSCS

  • H. Scott Strohmeyer, PhD

  • Adnan Saithna, MD

Relations

Relations

In Collection:

Items