Effect of blood flow restriction training on the magnitude and temporal characteristics of post-activation performance enhancement: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors: Li Yanfeng, Zhang Yilin, Kong Hao, Zheng Hang, Liu Jiajun, Yin Mingyue, Qiu Bopeng, Huang Kongyun, Liu Hengxian, Zhong Yuming, Chen Jun, Xu Kai
Objective: To systematically compare the acute effects of blood flow restriction combined with preconditioning (to induce post-activation performance enhancement) versus preconditioning alone or sitting, low-intensity preconditioning combined with blood flow restriction versus high-intensity preconditioning, and sitting combined with blood flow restriction versus sitting on sports performance using a multilevel meta-analysis. Methods: Following the PRISMA guidelines, Web of Science, PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and CNKI databases were systematically searched (from inception to May 24, 2025). Inclusion criteria: (1) healthy individuals who were at least physically active; (2) studies with at least one of the following four comparisons: preconditioning + blood flow restriction vs. preconditioning alone; preconditioning + blood flow restriction vs. sitting; low-intensity preconditioning + blood flow restriction vs. high-intensity preconditioning; sitting + blood flow restriction vs. sitting; (3) sports performance (e.g., jump, sprint, bench press throw) as the primary outcome; (4) randomized or non-randomized crossover/parallel designs; (5) published in peer-reviewed Chinese or English journals. Risk of bias was assessed using ROB-2, and evidence quality was evaluated with GRADE. Data were fitted using cluster robust variance estimation and a three-level mixed-effects model, with small-sample corrections. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression explored moderators and sources of heterogeneity. Results: Twelve studies (196 participants, 12 women, 184 men) were included. Main findings: (1) Preconditioning + blood flow restriction was more effective than preconditioning alone in enhancing sports performance (ES=0.21, 95%CI=0.01-0.40, GRADE=low), with the best effect at recovery times of 4-12 min and 50% arterial occlusion pressure (ES=1.49); (2) Preconditioning + blood flow restriction did not significantly differ from sitting (ES=0.52, 95%CI=-0.12-1.15, GRADE=very low), but preconditioning + 140 mmHg blood flow restriction was superior to preconditioning alone (ES=1.21, 95%CI=0.14-2.28); (3) Low-intensity preconditioning + blood flow restriction did not differ from high-intensity preconditioning (ES=-0.10, 95%CI=-0.84-0.64, GRADE=low); (4) Sitting + blood flow restriction did not significantly differ from sitting (ES=0.24, 95%CI=-0.03-0.52, GRADE=very low). Notably, the effects of the latter two comparisons significantly decreased with recovery time (β=-0.04, P < 0.01 and β=-0.04, P=0.02). Conclusion: Preconditioning combined with blood flow restriction is more effective than preconditioning alone in inducing post-activation performance enhancement, preliminarily suggesting the use of 50% arterial occlusion pressure and 4-12 min recovery time. However, preconditioning combined with blood flow restriction does not appear to be more effective than sitting, possibly due to insufficient number of included studies. Additionally, low-intensity preconditioning + blood flow restriction can achieve similar post-activation performance enhancement as high-intensity preconditioning, while the potential benefit of sitting + blood flow restriction on sports performance may diminish over time. Overall, it is preliminarily recommended to use low-intensity preconditioning (e.g., 30% one-repetition maximum squat or bodyweight training) combined with 50% arterial occlusion pressure or 140 mmHg blood flow restriction, with 4-12 min recovery before subsequent performance testing.