{"title":"有血流限制和无血流限制的阻力训练在成人中引起的慢性血流动力学适应:系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Allison Russo , Giorjines Boppre , Cristine Schmidt , Lucimere Bohn","doi":"10.1016/j.smhs.2023.09.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>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 <em>vs.</em> non-exercise, no significant differences favoring the exercise group were observed (<em>p</em> > 0.05). However, when compared to TRT, RT-BFR elicited additional improvements on DBP (−3.35; 95%<em>CI</em> -6.00 to −0.71; <em>I</em><sup><em>2</em></sup> = 14%; <em>z</em> = −2.48, <em>p</em> = 0.01), and on MAP (−3.96; 95%<em>CI</em> -7.94 to 0.02; <em>I</em><sup><em>2</em></sup> = 43%; <em>z</em> = −1.95, <em>p</em> = 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.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":33620,"journal":{"name":"Sports Medicine and Health Science","volume":"5 4","pages":"Pages 259-268"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666337623000677/pdfft?md5=f44dd6af4420f7776de73be9013321f4&pid=1-s2.0-S2666337623000677-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Chronic hemodynamic adaptations induced by resistance training with and without blood flow restriction in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Allison Russo , Giorjines Boppre , Cristine Schmidt , Lucimere Bohn\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.smhs.2023.09.006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>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 <em>vs.</em> non-exercise, no significant differences favoring the exercise group were observed (<em>p</em> > 0.05). However, when compared to TRT, RT-BFR elicited additional improvements on DBP (−3.35; 95%<em>CI</em> -6.00 to −0.71; <em>I</em><sup><em>2</em></sup> = 14%; <em>z</em> = −2.48, <em>p</em> = 0.01), and on MAP (−3.96; 95%<em>CI</em> -7.94 to 0.02; <em>I</em><sup><em>2</em></sup> = 43%; <em>z</em> = −1.95, <em>p</em> = 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.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":33620,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sports Medicine and Health Science\",\"volume\":\"5 4\",\"pages\":\"Pages 259-268\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666337623000677/pdfft?md5=f44dd6af4420f7776de73be9013321f4&pid=1-s2.0-S2666337623000677-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sports Medicine and Health Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666337623000677\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SPORT SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sports Medicine and Health Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666337623000677","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Chronic hemodynamic adaptations induced by resistance training with and without blood flow restriction in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis
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.