Toggle Main Menu Toggle Search

Open Access padlockePrints

Influence and reliability of lower-limb arterial occlusion pressure at different body positions

Lookup NU author(s): Dr Owen JeffriesORCiD



This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).


Background: Total arterial occlusive pressure (AOP) is used to prescribe pressures for surgery, blood flow restriction exercise (BFRE) and ischemic preconditioning (IPC). AOP is often measured in a supine position; however, the influence of body position on AOP measurement is unknown and may influence level of occlusion in different positions during BFR and IPC. The aim of this study was therefore to investigate the influence of body position on AOP.Methods: Fifty healthy individuals (age = 29 ± 6 y) underwent AOP measurements on the dominant lower-limb in supine, seated and standing positions in a randomised order. AOP was measured automatically using the Delfi Personalised Tourniquet System device, with each measurement separated by 5 min of rest.Results: Arterial occlusive pressure was significantly lower in the supine position compared to the seated position (187.00 ± 32.5 vs 204.00 ± 28.5 mmHg, p < 0.001) and standing position (187.00 ± 32.5 vs 241.50 ± 49.3 mmHg, p < 0.001). AOP was significantly higher in the standing position compared to the seated position (241.50 ± 49.3 vs 204.00 ± 28.5 mmHg, p < 0.001).Discussion: Arterial occlusive pressure measurement is body position dependent, thus for accurate prescription of occlusion pressure during surgery, BFR and IPC, AOP should be measured in the position intended for subsequent application of occlusion.

Publication metadata

Author(s): Hughes L, Jeffries O, Waldron M, Rosenblatt B, Gissane C, Paton B, Patterson SD

Publication type: Article

Publication status: Published

Journal: PeerJ

Year: 2018

Volume: 6

Pages: e4697

Online publication date: 02/05/2018

Acceptance date: 12/04/2018

Date deposited: 31/08/2018

ISSN (electronic): 2167-8359

Publisher: PeerJ Ltd


DOI: 10.7717/peerj.4697


Altmetrics provided by Altmetric