Blood flow restriction (BFR) training (also known as Kaatsu training) is an increasingly common practice employed during resistance exercise by athletes attempting to enhance skeletal muscle mass and strength. During BFR training, blood flow to the exercising muscle is mechanically restricted by placing flexible pressurizing cuffs around the active limb proximal to the working muscle. This maneuver results in the accumulation of metabolites (e.g., protons and lactic acid) in the muscle interstitium that increase muscle force and promote muscle growth. Therefore, the premise of BFR training is to simulate and receive the benefits of high-intensity resistance exercise while merely performing low-intensity resistance exercise. This technique has also been purported to provide health benefits to the elderly, individuals recovering from joint injuries, and patients undergoing cardiac rehabilitation. Since the seminal work of Alam and Smirk in the 1930s, it has been well established that reductions in blood flow to exercising muscle engage the exercise pressor reflex (EPR), a reflex that significantly contributes to the autonomic cardiovascular response to exercise. However, the EPR and its likely contribution to the BFR-mediated cardiovascular response to exercise is glaringly missing from the scientific literature. Inasmuch as the EPR has been shown to generate exaggerated increases in sympathetic nerve activity in disease states such as hypertension (HTN), heart failure (HF), and peripheral artery disease (PAD), concerns are raised that BFR training can be used safely for the rehabilitation of patients with cardiovascular disease, as has been suggested. Abnormal BFR-induced and EPR-mediated cardiovascular complications generated during exercise could precipitate adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (e.g., cardiac arrhythmia, myocardial infarction, stroke and sudden cardiac death). Moreover, although altered EPR function in HTN, HF, and PAD underlies our concern for the widespread implementation of BFR, use of this training mechanism may also have negative consequences in the absence of disease. That is, even normal, healthy individuals performing resistance training exercise with BFR are potentially at increased risk for deleterious cardiovascular events. This review provides a brief yet detailed overview of the mechanisms underlying the autonomic cardiovascular response to exercise with BFR. A more complete understanding of the consequences of BFR training is needed before this technique is passively explored by the layman athlete or prescribed by a health care professional.

Blood flow restriction training (BFRT) is an increasingly widespread method of exercise that involves imposed restriction of blood flow to the exercising muscle. Blood flow restriction is achieved by inflating a pneumatic pressure cuff (or a tourniquet) positioned proximal to the exercising muscle before, and during, the bout of exercise (i.e., ischemic exercise). Low-intensity BFRT with resistance training promotes comparable increases in muscle mass and strength observed during high-intensity exercise without blood flow restriction. BFRT has expanded into the clinical research setting as a potential therapeutic approach to treat functionally impaired individuals, such as the elderly, and patients with orthopedic and cardiovascular disease/conditions. However, questions regarding the safety of BFRT must be fully examined and addressed before the implementation of this exercise methodology in the clinical setting. In this respect, there is a general concern that BFRT may generate abnormal reflex-mediated cardiovascular responses. Indeed, the muscle metaboreflex is an ischemia-induced, sympathoexcitatory pressor reflex originating in skeletal muscle, and the present review synthesizes evidence that BFRT may elicit abnormal cardiovascular responses resulting from increased metaboreflex activation. Importantly, abnormal cardiovascular responses are more clearly evidenced in populations with increased cardiovascular risk (e.g., elderly and individuals with cardiovascular disease). The evidence provided in the present review draws into question the cardiovascular safety of BFRT, which clearly needs to be further investigated in future studies. This information will be paramount for the consideration of BFRT exercise implementation in clinical populations.

While acute heart failure (AHF) is often regarded as a single disorder, an evolving understanding recognises the existence of multiple phenotypes with varied pathophysiological alterations. Herein we discuss hypertensive AHF and provide insight into a mechanism where acute fluid redistribution is caused by a disturbance in the ventricular-vascular coupling relationship. In this relationship, acute alterations in vascular elasticity, vasoconstriction and reflected pulse waves lead to increases in cardiac work and contribute to decompensated LV function with associated subendocardial ischaemia and end-organ damage. Chronic predisposing factors (neurohormonal activity, nitric oxide insensitivity, arterial stiffening) and physiological stressors (sympathetic surge, volume overload, physical exertion) that are causally linked to acute symptom onset are discussed. Lastly, we review treatment options including both nitrovasodilators and promising novel therapeutics, and discuss future directions in the management of this phenotypic variant.

Muscle metaboreflex activation (MMA) during submaximal dynamic exercise in normal individuals increases mean arterial pressure (MAP) via increases in cardiac output (CO) with little peripheral vasoconstriction. The rise in CO occurs primarily via increases in heart rate (HR) with maintained or slightly increased stroke volume. When the reflex is sustained during recovery (postexercise muscle ischemia, PEMI), HR declines yet MAP remains elevated. The role of CO in mediating the pressor response during PEMI is controversial. In seven chronically instrumented canines, steady-state values with MMA during mild exercise (3.2 km/h) were observed by reducing hindlimb blood flow by ~60% for 3-5 min. MMA during exercise was followed by 60 s of PEMI. Control experiments consisted of normal exercise and recovery. MMA during exercise increased MAP, HR, and CO by 55.3 ± 4.9 mmHg, 42.5 ± 6.9 beats/min, and 2.5 ± 0.4 l/min, respectively. During sustained MMA via PEMI, MAP remained elevated and CO remained well above the normal recovery levels. Neither MMA during dynamic exercise nor during PEMI significantly affected peripheral vascular conductance. We conclude that the sustained increase in MAP during PEMI is driven by a sustained increase in CO not peripheral vasoconstriction.