PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
November 14, 2025Medicina2 citationsOpen Access

Comparative Effects of Abdominal Bracing and Valsalva Maneuver on Cerebral and Peripheral Hemodynamics in Healthy Adults: A Randomized Crossover Study

JYJie YuYLYeong‐Bae LeeJSJeong-Min Shim

Key Result

The Valsalva maneuver increased carotid pulsatility index (1.76 to 1.87; p=0.008), whereas abdominal bracing decreased peripheral oxygen saturation (98.43% to 97.49%; p<0.001).

Study Design

Type

RCT (n=30)

Randomization

Randomized order

Structured PICO

Do abdominal bracing and the Valsalva maneuver differentially affect central and peripheral hemodynamics in healthy adults?

P
Population
30 healthy young adults (mean age 21.9 years) evaluated for hemodynamic responses to abdominal bracing and the Valsalva maneuver in a randomized crossover study.
I
Intervention
Abdominal bracing (AB) and Valsalva maneuver (VM) performed in a randomized order
C
Comparator
Intra-individual comparison (crossover design)
O
Outcome
Hemodynamic responses including heart rate, blood pressure, pulse wave velocity, carotid artery diameter, pulsatility index, resistive index, peripheral oxygen saturation, and cerebral oxygenation measured before and after each interventionsurrogate

Abdominal bracing and the Valsalva maneuver elicit distinct central and peripheral hemodynamic responses, which may have implications for clinical and exercise settings.

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Blood flow is critical for tissue oxygenation, and alterations in cerebrovascular and peripheral circulation have important health implications. This study aimed to examine the impact of distinct mechanisms for increasing intra-cavity pressure through the abdominal bracing (AB) and Valsalva maneuver (VM) on central and peripheral hemodynamics. Materials and Methods: A randomized crossover design was used, and thirty healthy young adults (age 21.9 ± 1.5 years; BMI 20.9 ± 1.8 kg/m2) performed AB and VM in a randomized order. All participants provided written informed consent, and the study protocol was approved by the Clinical Research Information Service (KCT0009742; registered on 30 August 2024). Hemodynamic responses were measured before and after each intervention, including heart rate, blood pressure, pulse wave velocity, carotid artery diameter, pulsatility index, resistive index, peripheral oxygen saturation, and cerebral oxygenation. Repeated-measures analysis of variance and paired t-tests were conducted on the datasets. Results: Both the VM and AB significantly increased heart rate (p < 0.001) and systolic blood pressure (VM: p = 0.015; AB: p < 0.001). Cerebral oxygen saturation decreased significantly (VM: p < 0.05; AB: p < 0.05), whereas oxyhemoglobin increased during both interventions, suggesting higher cerebral oxygen demand. The VM specifically increased the carotid pulsatility index (pre = 1.76 ± 0.28; post2 = 1.87 ± 0.33; p = 0.008), reflecting elevated central vascular resistance. In contrast, AB decreased peripheral oxygen saturation (pre = 98.43 ± 0.71; post1 = 97.49 ± 1.76; p < 0.001) and increased peripheral (heart–finger) pulse wave velocity (Lt: p = 0.026; Rt: p = 0.010), indicating greater stimulation of peripheral circulation. Conclusions: Distinct mechanisms that elevate intra-cavity pressure differentially influence central and peripheral hemodynamics. These findings suggest that intra-cavity pressure can selectively modulate hemodynamic responses, with potential applications in both clinical and exercise settings.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Yu et al. (2025) conducted an RCT in Healthy (n=30). Abdominal bracing vs. Valsalva maneuver was evaluated on Central and peripheral hemodynamics (including heart rate, blood pressure, pulse wave velocity, and oxygen saturation). The Valsalva maneuver increased carotid pulsatility index (1.76 to 1.87; p=0.008), whereas abdominal bracing decreased peripheral oxygen saturation (98.43% to 97.49%; p<0.001).

synapsesocial.com/papers/6aa0c7bb8eabfe21f24f7c63https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61112031
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper