Key result
Blood flow restriction safely improves walking time but not SPPB in hospitalized older adults.
Why the study?
High-load training mitigates hospital-associated physical decline but is often impractical in acute care, leaving the clinical utility of low-load blood flow restriction training during hospitalization unclear.
Does standard physiotherapy with blood flow restriction improve physical performance and is it safe and feasible compared to standard physiotherapy alone in hospitalized older adults aged ≥70 years?
RCT (n=123)
randomly assigned
No
Does standard physiotherapy with blood flow restriction improve physical performance and is it safe and feasible compared to standard physiotherapy alone in hospitalized older adults aged ≥70 years?
Aerobic blood flow restriction training during walking is feasible, safe, and improves specific physical performance metrics like balance and walking time in hospitalized older adults.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Hypothesis-generating for BFR training in acute geriatric units; prospective trials needed before clinical adoption.
BACKGROUND: Hospital-associated physical decline is common among older adults. High-load training mitigates this but, is often impractical in acute care settings. Blood flow restriction (BFR) training is a promising low-load alternative, yet clinical utility during hospitalisation is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate feasibility, safety and effectiveness of aerobic BFR training in an acute geriatric unit (AGU). DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. METHODS: Of 123 eligible patients aged ≥70 years admitted to the AGU of a Belgian hospital (12 February-6 September 2024), 64 were randomly assigned to standard physiotherapy with BFR during walking, and 59 to physiotherapy without BFR. Feasibility outcomes included adherence, satisfaction and practicality. Safety was monitored through adverse event reporting. Effectiveness was evaluated using grip strength, Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), walking time, and Borg Rating of Exertion. Regression adjusted for age, sex, time, baseline function and physiotherapy dose; the main outcome was the group-by-session interaction (β). RESULTS: Adherence was high (BFR: 92%; control: 93%). Pain scores were similar (Cohen's d = 0.06) with no change across sessions (β = 1.01; P = .88). Regarding practicality, limb occlusion pressure assessment failed 23 times (12%). Mild dyspnea was more frequent with BFR (4% vs. 1%, P = 0.035), but no events of thrombosis, ischemia or rhabdomyolysis occurred. BFR led to significant improvements in SPPB-balance (β = -0.42, P = .035) and walking time (β = 0.95 s, P < .001), with a moderate, nonsignificant effect on total SPPB (β = -0.26, d = 0.57, P = .28). CONCLUSION: Aerobic BFR training appears feasible, safe and potentially effective in carefully selected hospitalised older adults.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brys et al. (2025) conducted an RCT in Hospital-associated physical decline (n=123). Aerobic blood flow restriction (BFR) training during walking vs. Standard physiotherapy without BFR was evaluated on Total Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) group-by-session interaction (β -0.26, p=.28). Aerobic blood flow restriction training during walking was feasible and safe, significantly improving walking time (P<0.001) but not total SPPB (P=0.28) in hospitalized older adults.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: