Survey of Blood Flow Restriction Training Applications in Sports Medicine and Performance Practice Across North America

Colapietro, MA, Lee, JZ, and Vairo, GL. Survey of blood flow restriction training applications in sports medicine and performance practice across North America. J Strength Cond Res 38(5): 856–863, 2024—This study profiled current clinical applications of blood flow restriction (BFR) training and observed side effects by surveying active sports medicine and performance personnel across North America. An online survey consisting of questions derived from a related position statement was distributed through professional organizations, email listservs, and social media. Personnel with experience applying or prescribing BFR training with permanent residence within the United States or Canada were eligible to participate. Variables captured included demographics (profession, practice setting), BFR equipment, treatment parameters, observed side effects, and personal perceptions regarding BFR training. An alpha level of p < 0.05 determined significance. A convenience sample included 72 clinicians with 67 being from the United States. Athletic trainers ( n = 35) and physical therapists ( n = 30) primarily participated. Chi-square test of independence indicated that a higher proportion of physical therapists (90.3%) report receiving formal education in BFR training compared with athletic trainers (65.7%) ( = 4.1, p = 0.043). Parameters varied between respondents for exercise prescription and occlusion settings. Respondents primarily followed position statement recommendations with individualized pressure selections for resistance (80.9%) and aerobic (84.8%) BFR modes. Side effects reported included delayed onset muscle soreness (66.2%), inability to continue because of pain (28%), and numbness (22.5%). Personal perceptions between athletic trainers and physical therapists were compared using independent t -tests. Physical therapists indicated higher confidence in safety (difference = 0.37 ± 0.32, p = 0.026), understanding recommendations (difference = 0.47 ± 0.37, p = 0.011), and theoretical principles (difference = 0.80 ± 0.53, p = 0.004). Despite variation in BFR parameters used, sports medicine personnel demonstrate compliance with position statement recommendations and report mild side effects.