Supplementary materials: Acute effects of resistance exercise with blood flow restriction on cardiovascular response: a meta-analysis

These are peer-reviewed supplementary materials for the article 'Acute effects of resistance exercise with blood flow restriction on cardiovascular response: a meta-analysis' published in the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research.Appendix 1: Search strategiesAppendix 2: Funnel plot analysisAppendix 3: Table 1. Methodological quality of eligible studies, PEDRo scale.Appendix 4: Assessment of the quality of evidence through the grade systemAppendix 5: Exploratory analysis of the BFR and resistance trainingAim: To compare the acute effects of low-load resistance training associated with blood flow restriction (LLRT-BFR) with low-load resistance training (LLRT) and high-load resistance training (HLRT) on cardiovascular outcomes in healthy individuals. Methods: This review was registered and the studies were selected using seven databases. Randomized controlled clinical trials were included that evaluated LLRT-BFR compared with LLRT and HLRT in young individuals for the cardiovascular outcomes. Results: 19 studies were included. In the comparison of LLRT-BFR with HLRT, there were significant differences for cardiac output and heart rate – with reduced values and in favor of LLRT-BFR. Conclusion: There are no greater acute effects of the addition of blood flow restriction, with the exception of the reduction in cardiac output and heart rate for LLRT-BFR compared with HLRT.

本数据集为发表在《比较疗效研究杂志》上的文章《血流限制下抗阻运动的急性心血管反应：一项荟萃分析》的同行评审补充材料。附录1：检索策略；附录2：漏斗图分析；附录3：表1. 合格研究的方合法质量，PEDRo量表；附录4：通过分级系统对证据质量进行评估；附录5：血流限制与抗阻训练的探索性分析。研究目的：比较低负荷抗阻训练伴随血流限制（LLRT-BFR）与低负荷抗阻训练（LLRT）及高负荷抗阻训练（HLRT）对健康个体心血管反应的急性影响。研究方法：本综述已在注册数据库中进行注册，并使用七个数据库选择了研究。纳入了随机对照临床试验，评估了LLRT-BFR与LLRT和HLRT在年轻人中对心血管反应的影响。研究结果：纳入了19项研究。在LLRT-BFR与HLRT的比较中，心输出量和心率存在显著差异，数值降低且有利于LLRT-BFR。研究结论：相较于HLRT，LLRT-BFR的急性效应并无显著增强，例外在于心输出量和心率的降低。