Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40969978›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2025

Tourniquet cuff pressure during blood flow restriction exercise.

Patrick Swain, James McEwen, Tom Lai, Luke Hughes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Patrick SwainAerospace Medicine and Rehabilitation Laboratory, Department of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
James McEwenWestern Clinical Engineering Ltd., Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Tom LaiWestern Clinical Engineering Ltd., Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Luke HughesAerospace Medicine and Rehabilitation Laboratory, Department of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The present study examined how well different blood flow restriction (BFR) devices deliver the prescribed tourniquet cuff pressure. Methods: Fifteen participants completed four BFR exercise sessions, each with a different BFR device [Delfi Personalized Tourniquet System (PTS) for BFR, Saga, SmartCuffs, and Suji], comprising four sets of unilateral leg press (30-15-15-15 repetitions) against resistance bands with 30-second rest periods. The tourniquet cuff was secured proximally on the exercising leg, and the target pressure was set to 80% limb occlusion pressure (LOP), as measured by the device, applied continuously throughout the exercise/rest periods. Tourniquet cuff pressure was sampled at 100 Hz via a pressure transducer. Results: Despite prescribing tourniquet cuff pressure at 80% LOP, the actual pressure can vary substantially and be inconsistent between individuals depending on the BFR device used. During the exercise periods, the median percentage of time pressure was within ±10% the target pressure was 95% (Delfi PTS for BFR), 25% (Saga), 26% (SmartCuffs), and 34% (Suji). During the rest periods, the median percentage of time pressure was within ±5% the target pressure was 99% (Delfi PTS for BFR), and 0% for the Saga, SmartCuffs, and Suji BFR devices. Tourniquet cuff pressure during BFR exercise behaves in a wave-like manner characterised by cyclical pressure peaks and valleys. The magnitude of pressure peaks and valleys was: Delfi PTS for BFR (89 ± 2% and 72 ± 3% LOP), Saga (79 ± 9 and 58 ± 7% LOP), SmartCuffs (79 ± 9% and 61 ± 7% LOP), and Suji (90 ± 15 and 65 ± 10% LOP). In several cases, participants experienced tourniquet pressures >100% LOP using the Saga, SmartCuffs, and Suji BFR devices, for up to ∼30%-55% of the exercise set duration. A progressive loss of pressure occurred throughout the BFR application period by an average of 2-4 mmHg·min Conclusion: Differences between the actual and prescribed tourniquet cuff pressure can highly depend on the BFR device employed. The selection of the BFR apparatus is thus important to delivering the prescribed tourniquet cuff pressure to allow for standardisation of the relative occlusion pressure between users.

Indexed as

autoregulationblood flow restrictionexercisepressuresurgical-gradetourniquet

Identifiers

PMID40969978
PMCPMC12441828

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.