Submit
Search
Submit
Menu

  • Information

  • Figures

  • References

  • Contents

  • Fig. 1.

    View in Article
    Full Image

  • Fig. 2.

    View in Article
    Full Image

  • Fig. 3.

    View in Article
    Full Image

  • Fig. 4.

    View in Article
    Full Image

  • [1]Wiśniowska-Szurlej A, Ćwirlej-Sozańska A, Wołoszyn N, Sozański B, Wilmowska-Pietruszyńska A. Association between Handgrip Strength, Mobility, Leg Strength, Flexibility, and Postural Balance in Older Adults under Long-Term Care Facilities. BioMed Research International. 2019; 2019: 1042834.

  • [2]Celis-Morales CA, Welsh P, Lyall DM, Steell L, Petermann F, Anderson J, et al. Associations of grip strength with cardiovascular, respiratory, and cancer outcomes and all cause mortality: prospective cohort study of half a million UK Biobank participants. British Medical Journal. 2018; 361: k1651.

  • [3]Holden M, Fyfe M, Poulin C, Bethune B, Church C, Hepburn P, et al. Handgrip Strength in People with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Physical Therapy. 2021; 101: pzab057.

  • [4]Zammit AR, Piccinin AM, Duggan EC, Koval A, Clouston S, Robitaille A, et al. A Coordinated Multi-study Analysis of the Longitudinal Association between Handgrip Strength and Cognitive Function in Older Adults. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B. 2021; 76: 229–241.

  • [5]Weng W, Cheng Y, Yang T, Lee S, Yang Y, Wang R. Effects of strength exercises combined with other training on physical performance in frail older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics. 2022; 102: 104757.

  • [6]Delleli S, Ouergui I, Messaoudi H, Trabelsi K, Ammar A, Glenn JM, Chtourou H. Acute Effects of Caffeine Supplementation on Physical Performance, Physiological Responses, Perceived Exertion, and Technical-Tactical Skills in Combat Sports: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Nutrients 2022; 14: 2996.

  • [7]Jin YZ, Yan S, Yuan WX. Effect of isometric handgrip training on resting blood pressure in adults: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness. 2017; 57: 154–160.

  • [8]Almeida JPAS, Bessa M, Lopes LTP, Gonçalves A, Roever L, Zanetti HR. Isometric handgrip exercise training reduces resting systolic blood pressure but does not interfere with diastolic blood pressure and heart rate variability in hypertensive subjects: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Hypertension Research. 2021; 44: 1205–1212.

  • [9]Fu J, Liu Y, Zhang L, Zhou L, Li D, Quan H, et al. Nonpharmacologic Interventions for Reducing Blood Pressure in Adults With Prehypertension to Established Hypertension. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2020; 9: e016804.

  • [10]Inder JD, Carlson DJ, Dieberg G, McFarlane JR, Hess NC, Smart NA. Isometric exercise training for blood pressure management: a systematic review and meta-analysis to optimize benefit. Hypertension Research. 2016; 39: 88–94.

  • [11]Farah BQ, Germano-Soares AH, Rodrigues SLC, Santos CX, Barbosa SS, Vianna LC, et al. Acute and Chronic Effects of Isometric Handgrip Exercise on Cardiovascular Variables in Hypertensive Patients: A Systematic Review. Sports. 2017; 5: 55.

  • [12]Olher Rdos R, Bocalini DS, Bacurau RF, Rodriguez D, Figueira A Jr, Pontes FL Jr, et al. Isometric handgrip does not elicit cardiovascular overload or post-exercise hypotension in hypertensive older women. Clinical Interventions in Aging. 2013; 8: 649–655.

  • [13]Wiles JD, Taylor K, Coleman D, Sharma R, O’Driscoll JM. The Safety of Isometric Exercise: Rethinking the exercise prescription paradigm for those with stage 1 hypertension. Medicine. 2018; 97: e0105.

  • [14]Baross AW, Wiles JD, Swaine IL. Double-leg isometric exercise training in older men. Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine. 2013; 4: 33–40.

  • [15]Gill KF, Arthur ST, Swaine I, Devereux GR, Huet YM, Wikstrom E, et al. Intensity-dependent reductions in resting blood pressure following short-term isometric exercise training. Journal of Sports Sciences. 2015; 33: 616–621.

  • [16]Wiles JD, Goldring N, O’Driscoll JM, Taylor KA, Coleman DA. An alternative approach to isometric exercise training prescription for cardiovascular health. Translational Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine. 2018; 3: 10–18.

  • [17]Notay K, Lee JB, Incognito AV, Seed JD, Arthurs AA, Millar PJ. Muscle Strength Influences Pressor Responses to Static Handgrip in Men and Women. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2018; 50: 778–784.

  • [18]Greaney JL, Schwartz CE, Edwards DG, Fadel PJ, Farquhar WB. The neural interaction between the arterial baroreflex and muscle metaboreflex is preserved in older men. Experimental Physiology. 2013; 98: 1422–1431.

  • [19]Yamaji K, Yoshii T, Shephard RJ. Cardiovascular responses to sustained isometric arm flexion and knee extension at 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50% MVC. Journal of Human Ergology. 1983; 12: 173–183.

  • [20]da Silva CA, Mortatti A, Silva RP, Silva GB Jr, Erberelli VF, Stefanini F, et al. Acute effect of isometric resistance exercise on blood pressure of normotensive healthy subjects. International Journal of Cardiology. 2013; 168: 2883–2886.

  • [21]Javidi M, Argani H, Ahmadizad S. Hemodynamic responses to different isometric handgrip protocols in hypertensive men. Science & Sports. 2019; 34: e251–e257.

  • [22]Somani YB, Baross AW, Brook RD, Milne KJ, McGowan CL, Swaine IL. Acute Response to a 2-Minute Isometric Exercise Test Predicts the Blood Pressure-Lowering Efficacy of Isometric Resistance Training in Young Adults. American Journal of Hypertension. 2018; 31: 362–368.

  • [23]Parmar HR, Sears J, Molgat-Seon Y, McCulloch CL, McCracken LA, Brown CV, et al. Oral contraceptives modulate the muscle metaboreflex in healthy young women. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism. 2018; 43: 460–466.

  • [24]Brook RD, Appel LJ, Rubenfire M, Ogedegbe G, Bisognano JD, Elliott WJ, et al. Beyond Medications and Diet: Alternative Approaches to Lowering Blood Pressure. Hypertension. 2013; 61: 1360–1383.

  • [25]Whelton PK, Carey RM, Aronow WS, Casey DE Jr, Collins KJ, Dennison Himmelfarb C, et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/ PCNA Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Hypertension. 2018; 71: 1269–1324.

  • [26]Sharman JE, Smart NA, Coombes JS, Stowasser M. Exercise and sport science australia position stand update on exercise and hypertension. Journal of Human Hypertension. 2019; 33: 837–843.

  • [27]Kounoupis A, Papadopoulos S, Galanis N, Dipla K, Zafeiridis A. Are Blood Pressure and Cardiovascular Stress Greater in Isometric or in Dynamic Resistance Exercise? Sports. 2020; 8: 41.

  • [28]Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine. 2009; 6: e1000097.

  • [29]Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2nd edn. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons. 2019.

  • [30]Carvalho APV, Silva V, Grande A. Avaliação do risco de viés de ensaios clínicos randomizados pela ferramenta da colaboração Cochrane. Diagnóstico & Tratamento. 2013; 18: 38–44.

  • [31]Aoki K, Sato K, Kondo S, Chae-Bok P, Yamamoto M. Increased response of blood pressure to rest and handgrip in subjects with essential hypertension. Japanese Circulation Journal. 1983; 47: 802–809.

  • [32]Auerbach I, Tenenbaum A, Motro M, Stroh CI, Har-Zahav Y, Fisman EZ. Blunted responses of doppler-derived aortic flow parameters during whole-body heavy isometric exercise in heart transplant recipients. Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation. 2000; 19: 1063–1070.

  • [33]Bakke EF, Hisdal J, Kroese AJ, Jørgensen JJ, Stranden E. Blood pressure response to isometric exercise in patients with peripheral atherosclerotic disease. Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging. 2007; 27: 109–115.

  • [34]Bakke EF, Hisdal J, Semb SO. Intraocular Pressure Increases in Parallel with Systemic Blood Pressure during Isometric Exercise. Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science. 2009; 50: 760.

  • [35]Balmain B, Stewart GM, Yamada A, Chan J, Haseler LJ, Sabapathy S. The impact of an experimentally induced increase in arterial blood pressure on left ventricular twist mechanics. Experimental Physiology. 2016; 101: 124–134.

  • [36]Ben-Ari E, Fisman EZ, Stroh J, Pines A, Dory Y, Motro M, et al. Doppler-derived Aortic Flow Measurements during and after Heavy Isometric Exercise in Healthy Men Versus Men with Myocardial Infarction. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography. 1992; 5: 219–224.

  • [37]Bentley DC, Thomas SG. Characterizing and Comparing Acute Responses of Blood Pressure, Heart Rate, and Forearm Blood Flow to 2 Handgrip Protocols. Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and Prevention. 2018; 38: 400–405.

  • [38]Borghi C, Costa FV, Boschi S, Ambrosioni E. Impaired Vasodilator Capacity and Exaggerated Pressor Response to Isometric Exercise in Subjects with Family History of Hypertension. American Journal of Hypertension. 1988; 1: 106S–109S.

  • [39]Bosisio E, Arosio A, Mandelli V, Sergi M. Ventilatory and Pressor Response to Isometric Exercise in Normal Subjects. Respiration. 1980; 40: 337–343.

  • [40]Cottone S, Maria C. Vella, AN. Influence of Vascular Load on Plasma Endothelin-1, Cytokines and Catecholamine Levels in Essential Hypertensives. Blood Pressure. 1998; 7: 144–148.

  • [41]Davies CTM, Starkie DW. The pressor response to voluntary and electrically evoked isometric contractions in man. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology. 1985; 53: 359–363.

  • [42]Dias T, Polito M. Acute Cardiovascular Response during Resistance Exercise with Whole-body Vibration in Sedentary Subjects: A Randomized Cross-over Trial. Research in Sports Medicine. 2015; 23: 253–264.

  • [43]Ehsani AA, Heath GW, Hagberg JM, Schechtman K. Noninvasive assessment of changes in left ventricular function induced by graded isometric exercise in healthy subjects. Chest. 1981; 80: 51–55.

  • [44]Ehsani AA, III WHM, Heath GW, Bloomfield SA. Left ventricular response to graded isometric exercise in patients with coronary heart disease. Clinical Physiology. 1982; 2: 215–224.

  • [45]Ferguson RA, Brown MD. Arterial blood pressure and forearm vascular conductance responses to sustained and rhythmic isometric exercise and arterial occlusion in trained rock climbers and untrained sedentary subjects. European Journal of Applied Physiology. 1997; 76: 174–180.

  • [46]Fu LT, Takahashi N, Yamamoto M, Kuboki M, Koyama S. Handgrip-induced negative U-wave in electrocardiogram of hypertensive subjects. Japanese Heart Journal. 1981; 22: 59–73.

  • [47]Fu Q, Levine BD, Pawelczyk JA, Ertl AC, Diedrich A, Cox JF, et al. Cardiovascular and sympathetic neural responses to handgrip and cold pressor stimuli in humans before, during and after spaceflight. The Journal of Physiology. 2002; 544: 653–664.

  • [48]Fujisawa H, Kamimura H, Ohtsuka Y, Nanbu T, Yabunaka N, Agishi Y. Continuous measurement of blood pressure, heart rate and left ventricular performance during and after isometric exercise in head-out water immersion. European Journal of Applied Physiology. 1996; 72: 548–552.

  • [49]Gois MO, Simões RP, Porta A, Kunz VC, Pastre CM, Catai AM. Cardiovascular responses to low-intensity isometric handgrip exercise in coronary artery disease: effects of posture. Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy. 2020; 24: 449–457.

  • [50]Goldstein IB, Shapiro D. Cardiovascular responses to mental arithmetic and handgrip during different conditions of postural change. Psychophysiology. 1988; 25: 127–136.

  • [51]Goldstraw PW, Warren DJ. The effect of age on the cardiovascular responses to isometric exercise: a test of autonomic function. Gerontology. 1985; 31: 54–58.

  • [52]Goulopoulou S, Fernhall B, Kanaley JA. Developmental Changes in Hemodynamic Responses and Cardiovagal Modulation during Isometric Handgrip Exercise. International Journal of Pediatrics. 2010; 2010: 1–11.

  • [53]Graafsma SJ, Van Tits LJ, Heijst PV, Reyenga J, Rodrigues De Miranda JF, Thien T. Effects of Isometric Exercise on Blood Cell Adrenoceptors in Essential Hypertension. Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology. 1989; 14: 598–602.

  • [54]Greaney JL, Stanhewicz AE, Kenney WL, Alexander LM. Muscle sympathetic nerve activity during cold stress and isometric exercise in healthy older adults. Journal of Applied Physiology. 2014; 117: 648–657.

  • [55]Greaney JL, Edwards DG, Fadel PJ, Farquhar WB. Rapid onset pressor and sympathetic responses to static handgrip in older hypertensive adults. Journal of Human Hypertension. 2015; 29: 402–408.

  • [56]Grossman E, Oren S, Garavaglia GE, Schmieder R, Messerli FH. Disparate hemodynamic and sympathoadrenergic responses to isometric and mental stress in essential hypertension. The American Journal of Cardiology. 1989; 64: 42–44.

  • [57]Hallman DM, Lindberg LG, Arnetz BB, Lyskov E. Effects of static contraction and cold stimulation on cardiovascular autonomic indices, trapezius blood flow and muscle activity in chronic neck-shoulder pain. European Journal of Applied Physiology. 2011; 111: 1725–1735.

  • [58]Heffernan KS, Baynard T, Goulopoulou S, Giannopoulou I, Collier SR, Figueroa A, et al. Baroreflex Sensitivity during Static Exercise in Individuals with down Syndrome. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2005; 37: 2026–2031.

  • [59]Heng MK, Bai JX, Marin J. Changes in left ventricular wall stress during isometric and isotonic exercise in healthy men. The American Journal of Cardiology. 1988; 62: 794–798.

  • [60]Hickey MS, Costill DL, Vukovich MD, Kryzmenski K, Widrick JJ. Time of day effects on sympathoadrenal and pressor reactivity to exercise in healthy men. European Journal of Applied Physiology. 1993; 67: 159–163.

  • [61]Hirasawa A, Sato K, Yoneya M, Sadamoto T, Bailey DM, Ogoh S. Heterogeneous Regulation of Brain Blood Flow during Low-Intensity Resistance Exercise. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2016; 48: 1829–1834.

  • [62]Huikuri HV, Airaksinen JK, Lilja M, Takkunen JT. Echocardiographic evaluation of left ventricular response to isometric exercise in young insulin-dependent diabetics. Acta Diabetologica. 1986; 23: 193–200.

  • [63]Ichinose M, Saito M, Kondo N, Nishiyasu T. Time-dependent modulation of arterial baroreflex control of muscle sympathetic nerve activity during isometric exercise in humans. American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology. 2006; 290: H1419–H1426.

  • [64]Iellamo F, Legramante JM, Castrucci F, Massaro M, Raimondi G, Peruzzi G, et al. Physiological unloading of cardiopulmonary mechanoreceptors by posture changes does not influence the pressor response to isometric exercise in healthy humans. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology. 1993; 66: 381–387.

  • [65]Iellamo F, Pizzinelli P, Massaro M, Raimondi G, Peruzzi G, Legramante JM. Muscle metaboreflex contribution to sinus node regulation during static exercise: insights from spectral analysis of heart rate variability. Circulation. 1999; 100: 27–32.

  • [66]Incognito AV, Doherty CJ, Lee JB, Burns MJ, Millar PJ. Interindividual variability in muscle sympathetic responses to static handgrip in young men: evidence for sympathetic responder types? American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology. 2018; 314: R114–R121.

  • [67]Kadetoff D, Kosek E. The effects of static muscular contraction on blood pressure, heart rate, pain ratings and pressure pain thresholds in healthy individuals and patients with fibromyalgia. European Journal of Pain. 2007; 11: 39–47.

  • [68]Kosek E, Kadetoff D. Evidence of reduced sympatho-adrenal and hypothalamic-pituitary activity during static muscular work in patients with fibromyalgia. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine. 2010; 42: 765–772.

  • [69]Kagaya A, Homma S. Brachial arterial blood flow during static handgrip exercise of short duration at varying intensities studied by a Doppler ultrasound method. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica. 1997; 160: 257–265.

  • [70]Kahn J, Favriou F, Monod JJAH. Influence of posture and training on the endurance time of a low-level isometric contraction. Ergonomics. 1997; 40: 1231–1239.

  • [71]Kalfon R, Campbell J, Alvarez-Alvarado S, Figueroa A. Aortic Hemodynamics and Arterial Stiffness Responses to Muscle Metaboreflex Activation With Concurrent Cold Pressor Test. American Journal of Hypertension. 2015; 28: 1332–1338.

  • [72]Kamiya A, Michikami D, Fu Q, Niimi Y, Iwase S, Mano T, et al. Static handgrip exercise modifies arterial baroreflex control of vascular sympathetic outflow in humans. American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology. 2001; 281: R1134–R1139.

  • [73]Koletsos N, Dipla K, Triantafyllou A, Gkaliagkousi E, Sachpekidis V, Zafeiridis A, et al. A brief submaximal isometric exercise test ‘unmasks’ systolic and diastolic masked hypertension. Journal of Hypertension. 2019; 37: 710–719.

  • [74]Kordi R, Mazaheri R, Rostami M, Mansournia MA. Hemodynamic changes after static and dynamic exercises and treadmill stress test; different patterns in patients with primary benign exertional headache? Acta Medica Iranica. 2012; 50: 399–403.

  • [75]Koutnik AP, Figueroa A, Wong A, Ramirez KJ, Ormsbee MJ, Sanchez-Gonzalez MA. Impact of acute whole-body cold exposure with concurrent isometric handgrip exercise on aortic pressure waveform characteristics. European Journal of Applied Physiology. 2014; 114: 1779–1787.

  • [76]Kramer H, Rehfeldt H, Mucke R, Tkhorevsky VI, Kalashnikova S, Petrov VA. Physiological responses to sustained isometric contractions during one- and two-armed work- Role of muscle mass on cardiovascular responses to isometric work. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health. 1983; 52: 271–279.

  • [77]Lewis SF, Snell PG, Taylor WF, Hamra M, Graham RM, Pettinger WA, et al. Role of muscle mass and mode of contraction in circulatory responses to exercise. Journal of Applied Physiology. 1985; 58: 146–151.

  • [78]Lindquist VA, Spangler RD, Blount SG Jr. A comparison between the effects of dynamic and isometric exercise as evaluated by the systolic time intervals in normal man. American Heart Journal. 1973; 85: 227–236.

  • [79]Lykidis CK, White MJ, Balanos GM. The pulmonary vascular response to the sustained activation of the muscle metaboreflex in man. Experimental Physiology. 2008; 93: 247–253.

  • [80]Maiorano G, Contursi V, Saracino E, Lecce GD, Ricapito M. Blood Pressure and Isometric Exercise: Correlation with Anthropometric Data and Electrolyte Urinary Excretion in Two Groups of Trained and Untrained Young Men. American Journal of Hypertension. 1989; 2: 65S–69S.

  • [81]Majahalme S, Turjanmaa V, Tuomisto M, Kautiainen H, Uusitalo A. Intra-arterial Blood Pressure during Exercise and Left Ventricular Indices in Normotension and Borderline and Mild Hypertension. Blood Pressure. 1997; 6: 5–12.

  • [82]Mäkinen TM, Mäntysaari M, Pääkkönen T, Jokelainen J, Palinkas LA, Hassi J, et al. Autonomic Nervous Function during whole-Body Cold Exposure before and after Cold Acclimation. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 2008; 79: 875–882.

  • [83]Matthews EL, Greaney JL, Wenner MM. Rapid onset pressor response to exercise in young women with a family history of hypertension. Experimental Physiology. 2017; 102: 1092–1099.

  • [84]McCoy DE, Wiley RL, Claytor RP, Dunn CL. Cardiopulmonary responses to combined rhythmic and isometric exercise in humans. European Journal of Applied Physiology. 1991; 62: 305–309.

  • [85]McDermott DJ, Stekiel WJ, Barboriak JJ, Kloth LC, Smith JJ. Effect of age on hemodynamic and metabolic response to static exercise. Journal of Applied Physiology. 1974; 37: 923–926.

  • [86]Metelitsina TI, Grunwald JE, DuPont JC, Ying G. Effect of isometric exercise on choroidal blood flow in patients with age-related macular degeneration. British Journal of Ophthalmology. 2010; 94: 1629–1631.

  • [87]Mizushige K, Masugata H, Morita H, Senda S, Matsuo H. Left ventricular diastolic filling dynamics during isometric exertion in syndrome X assessed with Doppler flowmetry. Angiology. 1997; 48: 871–881.

  • [88]Momen A, Gao Z, Cohen A, Khan T, Leuenberger UA, Sinoway LI. Coronary vasoconstrictor responses are attenuated in young women as compared with age-matched men. Journal of Physiology. 2010; 588: 4007–4016.

  • [89]Mortensen KH, Jones A, Steeden JA, Taylor AM, Muthurangu V. Isometric stress in cardiovascular magnetic resonance-a simple and easily replicable method of assessing cardiovascular differences not apparent at rest. European Radiology. 2016; 26: 1009–1017.

  • [90]Muller MD, Gao Z, Drew RC, Herr MD, Leuenberger UA, Sinoway LI. Effect of cold air inhalation and isometric exercise on coronary blood flow and myocardial function in humans. Journal of Applied Physiology. 2011; 111: 1694–1702.

  • [91]Nagle F, Seals D, Hanson P. Time to Fatigue during Isometric Exercise Using Different Muscle Masses. International Journal of Sports Medicine. 1988; 9: 313–315.

  • [92]Nakamura T, Mizushima T, Yamamoto M, Kawazu T, Umezu Y, Tajima F. Muscle sympathetic nerve activity during isometric exercise in patients with cerebrovascular accidents. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2005; 86: 436–441.

  • [93]Notay K, Lee JB, Incognito AV, Seed JD, Arthurs AA, Millar PJ. Muscle Strength Influences Pressor Responses to Static Handgrip in Men and Women. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2018; 50: 778–784.

  • [94]Notay K, Klingel SL, Lee JB, Doherty CJ, Seed JD, Swiatczak M, et al. TRPV1 and BDKRB2 receptor polymorphisms can influence the exercise pressor reflex. Journal of Physiology. 2018; 596: 5135–5148.

  • [95]Nyberg G. Blood Pressure and Heart Rate Response to Isometric Exercise and Mental Arithmetic in Normotensive and Hypertensive Subjects. Clinical Science. 1976; 51: 681s–685s.

  • [96]Park J, Middlekauff HR, Campese VM. Abnormal sympathetic reactivity to the cold pressor test in overweight humans. American Journal of Hypertension. 2012; 25: 1236–1241.

  • [97]Pepin EB, Hicks RW, Spencer MK, Tran ZV, Jackson CG. Pressor response to isometric exercise in patients with multiple sclerosis. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 1996; 28: 656–660.

  • [98]Petrofsky JS, Laymon M. The effect of ageing in spinal cord injured humans on the blood pressure and heart rate responses during fatiguing isometric exercise. European Journal of Applied Physiology. 2002; 86: 479–486.

  • [99]Cardillo Piccolino F, Lupidi M, Cagini C, Fruttini D, Nicolò M, Eandi CM, et al. Retinal Vascular Reactivity in Central Serous Chorioretinopathy. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2018; 59: 4425–4433.

  • [100]Plotnikov VP, Ivanova GE, Polyaev BA, Chogovadze AV. Cardiovascular Responses to Isometric Muscle Tension in Healthy Subjects and in Patients with Neurocirculatory Dystonia. Human Physiology 2002; 28: 466–469.

  • [101]Quarry VM, Spodick DH. Cardiac Responses to Isometric Exercise. Circulation. 1974; 49: 905–920.

  • [102]Riendl AM, Gotshall RW, Reinke JA, Smith JJ. Cardiovascular Response of Human Subjects to Isometric Contraction of Large and Small Muscle Groups. Experimental Biology and Medicine. 1977; 154: 171–174.

  • [103]Sagiv M, Hanson P, Besozzi M, Nagle F. Left ventricular responses to upright isometric handgrip and deadlift in men with coronary artery disease. American Journal of Cardiology. 1985; 55: 1298–1302.

  • [104]Sagiv M, Goldhammer E, Abinader EG, Rudoy J. Aging and the effect of increased after-load on left ventricular contractile state. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 1988; 20: 281–284.

  • [105]Sagiv M, Ben-Sira D, Rudoy J. Cardiovascular Response during Upright Isometric Dead Lift in Young, Older, and Elderly Healthy Men. International Journal of Sports Medicine. 1988; 9: 134–136.

  • [106]Sagiv M, Hanson P, Goldhammer E, Ben-Sira D, Rudoy J. Left Ventricular and Hemodynamic Responses during Upright Isometric Exercise in Normal Young and Elderly Men. Gerontology. 1988; 34: 165–170.

  • [107]Sagiv M, Hanson P, Ben-Ska D, Nagle F. Direct vs Indirect Blood Pressure at Rest and during Isometric Exercise in Normal Subjects. International Journal of Sports Medicine. 1995; 16: 514–518.

  • [108]Sagiv M, Amir O, Goldhammer E, Ben-Sira D, Amir R. Left ventricular contractility in response to upright isometric exercise in heart transplant recipients and healthy men. Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and Prevention. 2008; 28: 17–23.

  • [109]Samora M, Teixeira AL, Sabino-Carvalho JL, Vianna LC. Spontaneous cardiac baroreflex sensitivity is enhanced during post-exercise ischemia in men but not in women. European Journal of Applied Physiology. 2019; 119: 103–111.

  • [110]Seals DR. Influence of muscle mass on sympathetic neural activation during isometric exercise. Journal of Applied Physiology. 1989; 67: 1801–1806.

  • [111]Seals DR, Washburn RA, Hanson PG, Painter PL, Nagle FJ. Increased cardiovascular response to static contraction of larger muscle groups. Journal of applied physiology: respiratory, environmental and exercise physiology. 1983; 54: 434–437.

  • [112]Seals DR, Hurley BF, Hagberg JM, Schultz J, Linder BJ, Natter L, et al. Effects of training on systolic time intervals at rest and during isometric exercise in men and women 61 to 64 years old. American Journal of Cardiology. 1985; 55: 797–800.

  • [113]Stewart JM, Montgomery LD, Glover JL, Medow MS. Changes in regional blood volume and blood flow during static handgrip. American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology. 2007; 292: H215–H223.

  • [114]Tan CO, Tzeng YC, Hamner JW, Tamisier R, Taylor JA. Alterations in sympathetic neurovascular transduction during acute hypoxia in humans. American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology. 2013; 304: R959–R965.

  • [115]Taylor KA, Wiles JD, Coleman DD, Sharma R, Oʼdriscoll JM. Continuous Cardiac Autonomic and Hemodynamic Responses to Isometric Exercise. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2017; 49: 1511–1519.

  • [116]Turley KR. The Chemoreflex: Adult versus Child Comparison. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2005; 37: 418–425.

  • [117]Umeda M, Newcomb LW, Koltyn KF. Influence of blood pressure elevations by isometric exercise on pain perception in women. International Journal of Psychophysiology. 2009; 74: 45–52.

  • [118]Umeda M, Williams JP, Marino CA, Hilliard SC. Muscle pain and blood pressure responses during isometric handgrip exercise in healthy African American and non-Hispanic White adults. Physiology & Behavior. 2015; 138: 242–246.

  • [119]Van Huysduynen BH, Swenne CA, Van Eck HJ, Kors JA, Schoneveld AL, Van De Vooren H, et al. Hypertensive Stress Increases Dispersion of Repolarization. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology. 2004; 27: 1603–1609.

  • [120]Vaz M, Kumar MV, Kulkarni RN, Rodrigues D, Shetty PS. Variability of cardiovascular and plasma noradrenaline responses to sustained isometric contraction in normal human subjects. Clinical Science. 1993; 85: 45–49.

  • [121]Vianna LC, Sales AR, da Nóbrega AC. Cerebrovascular responses to cold pressor test during static exercise in humans. Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging. 2012; 32: 59–64.

  • [122]Vitcenda M, Hanson P, Folts J, Besozzi M. Impairment of left ventricular function during maximal isometric dead lifting. Journal of Applied Physiology. 1990; 69: 2062–2066.

  • [123]Weippert M, Behrens K, Rieger A, Stoll R, Kreuzfeld S. Heart rate variability and blood pressure during dynamic and static exercise at similar heart rate levels. PLoS ONE. 2013; 8: e83690.

  • [124]Williams CA. Effect of muscle mass on the pressor response in man during isometric contractions. The Journal of Physiology. 1991; 435: 573–584.

  • [125]Wright RL, Swain DP, Branch JD. Blood pressure responses to acute static and dynamic exercise in three racial groups. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 1999; 31: 1793.

  • [126]Mitchell JH, Payne FC, Saltin B, Schibye B. The role of muscle mass in the cardiovascular response to static contractions. The Journal of Physiology. 1980; 309: 45–54.

  • [127]Morais Azevêdo L, Gomes Oliveirae Silva L, Silva de Sousa JC, Yokoyama Fecchio R, Campos de Brito L, de Moraes Forjaz CL. Exercício físico e pressão arterial: efeitos, mecanismos, influências e implicações na hipertensão arterial. Revista Da Sociedade De Cardiologia do Estado De SãO Paulo. 2019; 29: 415–422.

  • [128]Humphreys PW, Lind AR. The blood flow through active and inactive muscles of the forearm during sustained hand-grip contractions. Journal of Physiology. 1963; 166: 120–135.

  • [129]Kenney LW. ACSM’s guidelines for exercise testing and prescription. 6th ed. Publisher: Philadelphia. 2000.

  • [130]Jarvis SS, VanGundy TB, Galbreath MM, Shibata S, Okazaki K, Reelick MF, et al. Sex differences in the modulation of vasomotor sympathetic outflow during static handgrip exercise in healthy young humans. American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology. 2011; 301: R193–R200.

  • [131]Smith JR, Koepp KE, Berg JD, Akinsanya JG, Olson TP. Influence of Sex, Menstrual Cycle, and Menopause Status on the Exercise Pressor Reflex. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2019; 51: 874–881.

  • [132]Lakatta EG, Levy D. Arterial and cardiac aging: major shareholders in cardiovascular disease enterprises: Part I: aging arteries: a “set up” for vascular disease. Circulation. 2003; 107: 139–146.

  • [133]Standridge JB. Hypertension and atherosclerosis: Clinical implications from the ALLHAT trial. Current Atherosclerosis Reports. 2005; 7: 132–139.

  • [134]Mayet J. Cardiac and vascular pathophysiology in hypertension. Heart. 2003; 89: 1104–1109.

Academic Editor

Article Metrics

  • Fig. 1.

    View in Article
    Full Image

  • Fig. 2.

    View in Article
    Full Image

  • Fig. 3.

    View in Article
    Full Image

  • Fig. 4.

    View in Article
    Full Image

  • Information

  • Download

  • Contents

Open Access 10 Feb 2023Systematic Review
Acute Blood Pressure Response to Different Types of Isometric Exercise: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis
Juliana C. CONEGLIAN 1,†, Guilherme T. BARCELOS 1,†, Antonio Cleilson N. BANDEIRA 1,*,†, Ana Carolina A. CARVALHO 2,†, Marilia A. CORREIA 3,†, Breno Q. FARAH 4,†, Raphael M. RITTI-DIAS 5,†, Aline M. GERAGE 1,†
Affiliations
Article Info

1 Post-graduate Program in Physical Education, Federal University of Santa Catarina, 88040-001 Florianópolis (SC), Brazil

2 Sports Center, Federal University of Santa Catarina, 88040-001 Florianópolis (SC), Brazil

3 Post-graduate Program in Medicine, Universidade Nove de Julho, 01525-000 São Paulo (SP), Brazil

4 Post-graduate Program in Physical Education, Federal University of Pernambuco, 52171-900 Recife (PE), Brazil

5 Post-graduate Program in Rehabilitation Sciences, Universidade Nove de Julho, 01525-000 São Paulo (SP), Brazil

*Correspondence: cleilson.nobre@gmail.com (Antonio Cleilson N. BANDEIRA)
†These authors contributed equally.

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to identify the blood pressure (BP) responses during different types of isometric exercises (IE) in adults and to evaluate whether BP responses according to IE is influenced by the characteristics of participants and exercise protocols. Methods: The search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Central, SPORTDiscus, and LILACS databases in June 2020. Random effects models with a 95% confidence interval and p < 0.05 were used in the analyses. Results: Initially, 3201 articles were found and, finally, 102 studies were included in this systematic review, seven of which were included in the meta-analysis comparing handgrip to other IE. Two-knee extension and deadlift promoted greater increases in systolic (+9.8 mmHg; p = 0.017; I2 = 74.5% and +26.8 mmHg; p ≤ 0.001; I2 = 0%, respectively) and diastolic (+7.9 mmHg; p = 0.022; I2 = 68.6% and +12.4 mmHg; p ≤ 0.001; I2 = 36.3%, respectively) BP compared to handgrip. Men, middle-aged/elderly adults, hypertensive individuals, and protocols with higher intensities potentiate the BP responses to handgrip exercise (p ≤ 0.001). Conclusions: IE involving larger muscle groups elicit greater BP responses than those involving smaller muscle masses, especially in men, middle-aged/elderly adults and hypertensive individuals. Future studies should directly compare BP responses during various types of IE in different populations.

Keywords

  • physical exercise
  • acute pressure response
  • cardiovascular safety
1. Introduction

Handgrip strength has been considered a marker of general strength due to positive association with lower limb strength [1] and also has been associated with several health outcomes as mortality [2] health-related quality of life [3] and cognitive performance [4] in clinical populations. In addition, it has been used as an indicator of muscle strength in intervention studies in different populations [5, 6].

Otherwise, the isometric handgrip training has been used to improve cardiovascular health [7, 8, 9], given the reduction in blood pressure (BP) and improvement in endothelial function after a few weeks of intervention. The most commonly used handgrip protocol consists of four two-minute sets of contractions at 30% of maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) with a recovery interval of one to four minutes [9, 10, 11]. This modality of exercise appears to be safe from a cardiovascular point of view [12, 13], but there is no clarity about the magnitude of BP increase identified during its performance.

In addition, lower limb isometric exercises, involving larger muscle masses, have also been shown to be effective for chronic BP reduction [14, 15, 16]. However, the BP responses during these modalities of isometric exercise (IE) are unclear. Therefore, there are no recommendations for their adoption as a safe antihypertensive strategy.

Regarding the characteristics of the exercise protocol, greater muscle mass [17, 18], intensity [19, 20], frequency, and duration of contraction [21] seem to promote greater increases on the BP response during dynamic strength exercise. However, the influence of these factors on BP responses to IE still needs to be confirmed.

Moreover, the influence of subjects’ personal characteristics on acute BP responses to IE also needs to be investigated, trying to identify which groups of subjects would be at increased risk of acute events. Some studies show that men and older individuals present greater BP responses to IE compared to their pairs [22, 23, 17] while others have observed no difference [18].

Although isometric handgrip has recently been included as a complementary non-pharmacological strategy for the prevention and treatment of hypertension [24, 25, 26], there is still reluctance by international organizations to add this exercise modality in exercise guidelines to the same extent as dynamic resistance exercise [13, 27], since its cardiovascular safety is not yet well established, especially considering other exercises involving larger muscle mass.

In this context, to the best of our knowledge, there are no review studies that evidence the BP responses during the execution of different types of IE in adults. Thus, this systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to identify the BP responses during different types of IE in isolation and compared to handgrip in adults, and to identify such responses according to the characteristics of participants and exercise protocols.

2. Materials and Methods

This study protocol was previously registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020190823) and followed PRISMA guidelines [28].

2.1 Eligibility Criteria for Studies

Studies with any experimental design (randomized or not and controlled or not) were included, respecting the eligibility criteria established according to the acronym PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome) [28]. Inclusion criteria were: adult participants (≥18 years), hypertensive or normotensive of both sexes, trained and untrained; IE of any type, intensity, volume, and load control; presence or absence of a comparator group with another type of IE; relating systolic blood pressure (SBP) and/or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) values, assessed before and during exercise or the difference between the two moments (delta). Furthermore, studies in Portuguese, English, or Spanish, available in full and published in any year were included.

Exclusion criteria were: adults with any comorbidity (except hypertension) or specific condition (e.g., pregnant women); studies with other interventions associated with IE; investigating the effects of medications; with IE performed after or randomly with other exercise modalities; that performed several stress tests on the same day before IE (without randomization), and with incremental testing; comparing IE with another exercise modality, without having a separate group for IE; with SBP and/or DBP measurements only after the exercise and only mean BP data.

2.2 Search Methods for Identification of Studies

The search for articles was conducted in the PubMed, Cochrane Central, SPORTDiscus, and LILACS databases in the month of June 2020. The search strategy, used for all databases, is available in Supplementary Material 1.

2.3 Study Selection and Data Extraction

The EndNote® X9.3.3 software (Philadelphia, PA, USA) was used to manage references and remove duplicates. First, the selection of articles was based on title and abstract reading by two independent researchers (GTB. and JCC.). The next step consisted of reading the full texts and selecting the studies according to eligibility criteria. In both steps, if there were disagreements between researchers, a third researcher (AMG) was consulted to reach a consensus.

Data extraction was performed by the same researchers, in a standardized and independent way. The following information regarding the participants was extracted: number of participants, percentage of women in the sample, age, ethnicity/race, training status, body mass, body mass index (BMI), and BP level classification. For the BP level classification, we considered the report of each study and not the resting BP value. If the study did not clearly report this information, we considered it as “not reported”. For the exercise protocol, it was considered: number and duration of sets, interval between sets, and intensity of effort. Regarding the outcome of the studies, the following were considered: SBP and DBP before (rest measurement) and during exercise or the difference between the two moments (delta), with mean and dispersion measures.

2.4 Risk of Bias Assessment

The risk of bias analysis was feasible only for the studies that compared handgrip with other IE, due to the various types of study designs included in this systematic review. In this case, the risk of bias was assessed by the same researchers who screened the studies and extracted the data, according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [29], considering random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and professionals, blinding of outcome assessors, incomplete outcomes, selective outcome reporting, and BP measurement method (other bias). It was classified as high, unclear or low risk [30]. Also, the criteria were classified as not applicable when it was not possible to be assessed due to the study design.

2.5 Data Analysis

All descriptive data are presented as mean and standard deviation (SD). Delta values for BP were calculated (BP during exercise - baseline BP). The overall effect for each type of exercise and the subgroup analyses were calculated from the mean difference between the pre-exercise BP and the BP during exercise. The comparison of BP between the IE types was performed using the mean values for each exercise type. Also, the effect of the comparison between the handgrip exercise and other exercise types was calculated from the mean difference in BP change between them. The SD of change was calculated from the pre-exercise and during-exercise SD values, adopting a correlation coefficient of 0.5. Meta-analyses were calculated using random effects models. Statistical heterogeneity between studies was assessed by the I2 inconsistency test; considering that values above 50% indicate high heterogeneity [29]. Forest plots were generated to represent the combined effect and standardized mean differences with 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. The analyses were performed using Comprehensive Meta Analysis software version 2.2.064 (Englewood, NJ, USA.).

3. Results
3.1 Search Results

Initially, 3201 articles were found (Pubmed = 2170, Cochrane = 381, Lilacs = 237, and SPORTDiscus = 413) and 102 studies were, finally, included in the systematic review. Of these, seven were included in the meta-analysis comparing handgrip with others IE (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Flowchart of the different steps of the systematic review.

3.2 Characteristics of the Studies

In summary, the studies of this systematic review included 12 types of IE and some of them evaluated more than one type of IE. Among these studies, the vast majority (76.5%) performed the handgrip, followed by knee extension (13.7%) (Table 1, Ref. [8, 13, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125]).

Table 1.Characteristics of the studies.
Author and year Country of origin Modality Sample (%women) Age (years) Ethnicity/race Trainability status Body mass (kg) BMI (kg/m2) BP level classification
Almeida et al. (2021) [8] Brazil Handgrip 14.0 (79.0%) 24.5 ± 3.7 NR Sedentary NR 22.8 ± 2.2 Normotensive
14.0 (50.0%) 26.6 ± 5.6 24.2 ± 3.7
Aoki et al. (1983) [31] Japan Handgrip 18.0 (0.0%) 38.7 ± 3.2 Japanese NR 64.1 ± 5.7 NR Normotensive
50.0 (0.0%) 40.5 ± 4.0 61.6 ± 7.1 Hypertensive
Auerbach et al. (2000) [32] Israel Whole-body isometric exercise 18.0 (0.0%) 51.1 ± 4.0 NR NR 80.5 ± 11.0 NR Normotensive
Bakke et al. (2007) [33] Norway Handgrip 11.0 (64.0%) 24.2 ± 5.1 NR NR 66.6 ± 10.0 23.3 ± 2.0 Normotensive
11.0 (36.0%) 62.7 ± 3.3 77.4 ± 9.9 25.0 ± 2.2
Bakke et al. (2009) [34] Norway Handgrip 9.0 (33.0%) 23.6 ± 2.1 NR NR 68.0 ± 10.2 22.5 ± 1.8 Normotensive
Balmain et al. (2016) [35] Australia Handgrip 19.0 (0.0%) 23.0 ± 2.0 NR NR 70.9 ± 5.0 NR Normotensive
Ben-Ari et al. (1992) [36] Israel Two-hand pulling 25.0 (0.0%) 47.0 ± 4.0 NR Untrained NR NR Normotensive
Bentley and Thomas (2018) [37] Canada Handgrip 20.0 (100.0%) 57.7 ± 5.2 NR Moderately active NR 26.9 ± 3.7 Normotensive
Borghi et al. (1988) [38] Italy Handgrip 16.0 (37.5%) NR NR NR NR NR Normotensive
Bosisio et al. (1980) [39] Italy Handgrip 8.0 (0.0%) NR NR Trained (non-athlete) NR NR Normotensive
Cottone et al. (1998) [40] Italy Handgrip 12.0 (42.0%) 38.0 ± 6.0 NR NR NR 25.7 ± 1.7 Normotensive
15.0 (47.0%) 43.0 ± 3.0 26.0 ± 3.9 Hypertensive
Davies and Starkie (1985) [41] England Elbow flexion 11.0 (0.0%) 21.5 ± 7.3 NR NR NR NR Normotensive
Plantar flexion
Da Silva et al. (2013) [20] Brazil Leg press (45°) AI: 8.0 (0.0%) 30.6 ± 6.2 NR Physically active 74.4 ± 8.6 24.7 ± 2.6 Normotensive
MI: 8.0 (0.0%) 31.6 ± 6.6 72.3 ± 13.9 24.2 ± 2.7
BI: 8.0 (0.0%) 27.5 ± 4.6 74.2 ± 15.8 25.5 ± 3.1
Dias and Polito (2015) [42] Brazil Squat 19.0 (53.0%) 26.8 ± 7.3 NR Sedentary 72.3 ± 14.9 24.7 ± 3.4 Normotensive
Ehsani et al. (1981) [43] United States Handgrip 14.0 (14.0%) NR NR NR NR NR Normotensive
Ehsani et al. (1982) [44] United States Handgrip 12.0 (8.0%) NR NR NR NR NR Normotensive
Ferguson and Brown (1997) [45] England Handgrip 5.0 (0.0%) 22.0 ± 1.8 NR Athlete NR NR NR
10.0 (0.0%) 20.0 ± 4.7 Sedentary
Fu et al. (1981) [46] Japan Handgrip 20.0 (NR) 54.9 ± 6.3 NR NR NR NR Normotensive
35.0 (34.0%) 56.3 ± 9.5 Hypertensive
Fu et al. (2002) [47] United States Handgrip 5.0 (0.0%) 41.0 ± 2.2 NR NR 84.0 ± 13.4 NR Normotensive
Fujisawa et al. (1996) [48] Japan One-knee extension 7.0 (0.0%) 24.0 ± 3.0 NR NR 63.9 ± 17.3 NR Normotensive
Gois et al. (2020) [49] Brazil Handgrip 15.0 (NR) 53.0 ± 5.0 NR Insufficiently active 75.0 ± 15.0 25.0 ± 3.0 Normotensive
Goldstein and Shapiro (1988) [50] United States Handgrip 20.0 (0.0%) 20.4 ± 3.2 NR NR NR NR Normotensive
Goldstraw and Warren (1985) [51] England Handgrip 12.0 (NR) 30.0 ± NR NR NR NR NR NR
12.0 (NR) 73.0 ± NR
Goulopoulou et al. (2010) [52] United States Handgrip 23.0 (43.5%) 22.0 ± 1.4 NR Physically active 76.9 ± 17.7 26.0 ± 4.8 Normotensive
Graafsma et al. (1989) [53] Netherlands Handgrip 10.0 (50.0%) 42.6 ± 9.1 NR NR NR 23.3 ± 2.9 Normotensive
13.0 (46.0%) 39.1 ± 10.4 24.1 ± 3.0 Hypertensive
Greaney et al. (2013) [18] United States Handgrip 10.0 (0.0%) 24.0 ± 3.2 NR NR 75.0 ± 9.5 23.2 ± 1.9 Normotensive
9.0 (0.0%) 59.0 ± 6.0 87.0 ± 6.0 28.5 ± 3.9
Greaney et al. (2014) [54] United States Handgrip 11.0 (45.5%) 23.0 ± 3.3 NR Physically active 71.0 ± 10.0 23.0 ± 2.7 Normotensive
12.0 (41.7%) 60.0 ± 6.9 81.0 ± 13.9 26.2 ± 2.4
Greaney et al. (2015) [55] United States Handgrip 23.0 (NR) 60.0 ± 4.8 NR NR NR 26.7 ± 3.8 Normotensive
15.0 (NR) 63.0 ± 3.9 27.6 ± 2.7 Hypertensive
Grossman et al. (1989) [56] United States Handgrip 18.0 (33.0%) 53.0 ± 12.0 NR NR NR NR Hypertensive
Hallman et al. (2011) [57] Sweden Handgrip 21.0 (90.5%) 40.8 ± 7.0 NR NR NR 24.3 ± 3.7 Normotensive
Heffernan et al. (2005) [58] United States Handgrip 10.0 (50.0%) 27.5 ± 8.5 NR Sedentary/moderately active 75.3 ± 14.6 26.6 ± 3.5 Normotensive
Heng et al. (1988) [59] United States Handgrip 12.0 (0.0%) 29.0 ± 5.0 NR NR 67.0 ± 5.0 NR Normotensive
Hickey et al. (1993) [60] United States Two-knee extension 8.0 (0.0%) 24.0 ± 0.5 NR Trained 77.6 ± 3.4 NR Normotensive
Hirasawa et al. (2016) [61] Japan One-knee extension 12.0 (67.0%) 21.0 ± 2.0 NR NR 58.0 ± 8.0 NR Normotensive
Huikuri et al. (1986) [62] Finland Handgrip 13.0 (54.0%) 25.0 ± 6.0 NR NR NR NR Normotensive
Ichinose et al. (2006) [63] Japan Handgrip 13.0 (23.0%) 23.0 ± 3.6 NR NR 62.4 ± 11.2 NR Normotensive
Iellamo et al. (1993) [64] Italy Handgrip 10.0 (0.0%) NR NR NR NR NR Normotensive
Iellamo et al. (1999) [65] Italy One-knee extension 11.0 (0.0%) 26.0 ± 2.4 NR Untrained NR NR Normotensive
Incognito et al. (2018) [66] Canada Handgrip 29.0 (0.0%) 24.0 ± 5.0 NR NR NR 24.0 ± 3.0 Normotensive
Kadetoff and Kosek (2007) [67] Sweden One-knee extension 17.0 (100.0%) 37.4 ± NR NR NR NR NR Normotensive
Kadetoff and Kosek (2010) [68] Sweden Two-knee extension 16.0 (100.0%) 38.3 ± NR NR NR NR NR Normotensive
Kagaya and Homma (1997) [69] Japan Handgrip 7.0 (100.0%) 22.3 ± 2.9 NR Physically active 54.4 ± 7.5 NR Normotensive
Kahn et al. (1997) [70] France Handgrip 12.0 (0.0%) 23.6 ± 1.4 NR NR 73.0 ± 9.4 NR Normotensive
Kalfon et al. (2015) [71] United States Handgrip 16.0 (0.0%) 23.7 ± 6.8 NR Sedentary 86.8 ± 14.8 29.3 ± 4.4 Normotensive
Kamiya et al. (2001) [72] Japan Handgrip 22.0 (0.0%) 22.0 ± 9.4 NR NR 65.0 ± 9.4 NR Normotensive
Koletsos et al. (2019) [73] Greece Handgrip 28.0 (42.9%) 43.8 ± 13.0 NR Minimally and moderately active NR 26.6 ± 4.1 Normotensive
27.0 (40.7%) 47.5 ± 11.6 27.6 ± 4.7 Hypertensive (masked)
31.0 (48.4%) 47.6 ± 7.0 26.8 ± 3.9 Hypertensive (true)
Kordi et al. (2012) [74] Iran Handgrip 20.0 (60.0%) 19.3 ± 2.0 NR NR NR NR NR
Koutnik et al. (2014) [75] United States Handgrip 20.0 (0.0%) 22.1 ± 9.0 NR Not regularly active 84.7 ± 14.0 27.1 ± 4.5 Normotensive
Kramer et al. (1983) [76] Germany Handgrip (unilateral e (bilateral)) 4.0 (0.0%) NR NR NR NR NR NR
Lewis et al. (1985) [77] United States Handgrip 6.0 (0.0%) 27.0 ± 3.0 NR NR 74.60 ± 8.7 NR Normotensive
Two-knee extension
Lindquist et al. (1973) [78] United States Handgrip 21.0 (0.0%) 32.0 ± NR NR NR NR NR Normotensive
Lykidis et al. (2008) [79] England Handgrip 9.0 (44.4%) 21.8 ± 6.7 NR Physically active NR NR NR
Maiorano et al. (1989) [80] Italy Handgrip 50.0 (0.0%) 19.3 ± 1.2 NR Trained and 68.88 ± 11.0 22.92 ± 3.2 Normotensive
50.0 (0.0%) 19.2 ± 1.2 untrained 68.66 ± 10.2 22.99 ± 3.8
Majahalme et al. (1997) [81] Finland Handgrip 28.0 (0.0%) 39.5 ± 4.2 NR NR 81.7 ± 8.7 25.4 ± 2.6 Normotensive
14.0 (0.0%) 40.7 ± 4.3 87.6 ± 10.6 26.9 ± 3.5 Hypertensive (borderline)
24.0 (0.0%) 40.0 ± 3.9 81.9 ± 8.6 26.5 ± 2.6 Hypertensive (mild)
Mäkinen et al. (2008) [82] Finland Handgrip 10.0 (0.0%) 22.5 ± 1.6 NR NR 72.4 ± 7.3 22.3 ± 1.6 Normotensive
Matthews et al. (2017) [83] United States Handgrip 16.0 (100.0%) 22.0 ± 3.0 NR - NR 22.0 ± 3.0 Normotensive
16.0 (100.0%) 22.0 ± 2.0 - 22.0 ± 3.0
McCoy et al. (1991) [84] United States Handgrip 9.0 (0.0%) NR NR NR 71.5 ± 6.6 NR NR
McDermott et al. (1974) [85] United States Handgrip 10.0 (0.0%) 25.3 ± 4.1 NR Untrained 78.4 ± 7.6 NR Normotensive
12.0 (0.0%) 46.8 ± 2.8 80.9 ±12.5
Metelitsina et al. (2010) [86] United States Handgrip 19.0 (63.2%) 64.7 ± 8.3 White - 18 (94.7%) NR NR NR Normotensive/Hypertensive
Mizushige et al. (1997) [87] Japan Handgrip 14.0 (42.9%) 59.0 ± NR NR NR NR NR Normotensive
Momen et al. (2010) [88] United States Handgrip 11.0 (0.0%) NR NR NR NR 23.0 ± 1.0 Normotensive
11.0 (100.0%) 22.0 ± 1.0
Mortensen et al. (2016) [89] England Elbow flexion (unilateral) 75.0 (49.3%) 38.8 ± 10.9 NR NR NR 25.1 ± 4.4 Normotensive
Muller et al. (2011) [90] United States Handgrip 10.0 (50.0%) 25.0 ± 3.2 NR NR 73.0 ± 12.7 NR Normotensive
Nagle et al. (1988) [91] United States Handgrip 10.0 (0.0%) 24.0 ± 3.0 NR Untrained 71.0 ± 10.0 NR Normotensive
Two-knee extension
Deadlift
Nakamura et al. (2005) [92] Japan Elbow flexion (unilateral) 8.0 (0.0%) 63.0 ± 3.7 NR NR NR 23.1 ± 1.4 Normotensive/Hypertensive
Notay et al. (2018) [93] Canada Handgrip 200.0 (54.5%) 22.0 ± 3.0 Caucasian (non-Hispanic) = 192 Recreationally active 69.0 ± 13.0 23.0 ± 3.0 Normotensive
Hispanic = 5
Black = 3
Notay et al. (2018b) [94] Canada Handgrip 66.0 (0.0%) 22.0 ± 3.0 NR Recreationally active 77.0 ± 13.0 24.0 ± 3.0 Normotensive
66.0 (100.0%) 21.0 ± 2.0 63.0 ± 9.0 23.0 ± 3.0
Nyberg (1976) [95] Australia Handgrip 10.0 (0.0%) 30.6 ± NR NR NR NR NR Normotensive
9.0 (100.0%) 30.4 ± NR Hypertensive (untreated)
9.0 (0.0%) 45.3 ± NR Hypertensive (treated)
12.0 (100.0%) 46.8 ± NR
12.0 (0.0%) 46.9 ± NR
5.0 (100.0%) 48.4 ± NR
Park et al. (2012) [96] United States Handgrip 12.0 (33.3%) 28.9 ± 4.9 Caucasia= 6 NR 62.8 ± 8.0 21.7 ± 1.7 Normotensive
12.0 (41.7%) 32.3 ± 7.6 Hispanic= 3 82.9 ± 11.1 27.4 ± 1.4
Asian= 3
Caucasian= 7
Hispanic = 4
Asian= 1
Parmar et al. (2018) [23] Canada Handgrip 11.0 (0.0%) 24.0 ± 3.3 NR Physically active 75.0 ± 6.6 23.7 ± 1.7 Normotensive
9.0 (100.0%) 22.0 ± 3.0 61.0 ± 3.0 22.0 ± 1.5
10.0 (100.0%) 22.0 ± 6.3 61.0 ±12.7 22.3 ± 4.1
Pepin et al. (1996) [97] United States Handgrip 25.0 (64.0%) 34.3 ± 5.5 NR NR NR NR NR
Petrosfsky and Laymon (2002) [98] United States Handgrip 20–30 years = 15.0 (NR) NR NR Untrained 81.8 ± NR NR NR
Two-knee extension 31–40 years = 10.0 (NR) 83.4 ± NR
41–50 years = 12.0 (NR) 83.5 ± NR
51–65 years = 13.0 (NR) 85.1 ± NR
Piccolino et al. (2018) [99] Italy Handgrip 25.0 (8.0%) 43.2 ± 8.3 Caucasian NR NR NR Normotensive
Plotnikov et al. (2002) [100] Russia Handgrip 48.0 (100.0%) NR NR NR NR NR Normotensive
Torso effort
Quarry and Spodick (1974) [101] United States Handgrip 10.0 (0.0%) NR NR Physically active NR NR Normotensive
Riendl et al. (1977) [102] United States Finger adduction 10.0 (0.0%) 25.1 ± 2.2 NR Untrained NR NR Normotensive
Plantar flexion
Sagiv et al. (1985) [103] United States Handgrip 10.0 (0.0%) 52.0 ± 2.0 NR NR NR NR Normotensive
Deadlift
Sagiv et al. (1988) [104] Israel Deadlift 10.0 (0.0%) 28.0 ± 3.0 NR Physically active 82.0 ± 3.0 NR Normotensive
10.0 (0.0%) 67.0 ± 4.0 80.0 ± 2.0
Sagiv et al. (1988b) [105] Israel Deadlift 25.0 (0.0%) 27.4 ± 2.3 NR Physically active 82.3 ± 10.9 NR Normotensive
25.0 (0.0%) 51.0 ± 3.2 79.5 ± 7.6
25.0 (0.0%) 67.8 ± 3.8 80.0 ± 10.2
Sagiv et al. (1988c) [106] Israel Handgrip 10.0 (0.0%) 28.0 ± 3.0 NR Physically active 81.7 ± 3.1 NR Normotensive
Deadlift 10.0 (0.0%) 67.0 ± 4.0 79.5 ± 2.4
Sagiv et al. (1995) [107] United States Handgrip 5.0 (0.0%) 33.0 ± 5.0 NR Physically active NR NR Normotensive
Deadlift
Sagiv et al. (2008) [108] Israel Deadlift 15.0 (0.0%) 40.0 ± 13.0 NR NR 80.5 ± 9.2 NR Normotensive
Samora et al. (2019) [109] Brazil Handgrip 20.0 (0.0%) 21.0 ± 2.7 NR Physically active 78.0 ± 9.8 24.9 ± 2.7 Normotensive
20.0 (100.0%) 23.0 ± 2.7 61.4 ± 9.8 23.0 ± 2.7
Seals (1989) [110] United States Handgrip (unilateral and bilateral) 9.0 (33.0%) NR NR NR NR NR Normotensive
Seals et al. (1983) [111] United States Elbow extension 6.0 (0.0%) NR NR Untrained and trained (untrained and trained members after a training period) Untrained NR Normotensive
One-knee extension 72.7 ± 13.1 Trained
71.7 ± 13.9
Seals et al. (1985) [112] United States Handgrip 10.0 (40.0%) 62.0 ± 1.0 NR Untrained and trained Before: 74.0 ± 12.0 After: 73.0 ± 11.0 NR Normotensive
Somani et al. (2018) [22] Canada and England Handgrip 26.0 (50.0%) 25.0 ± 4.0 NR Recreationally active/non-active 72.0 ± 15.0 24.0 ± 4.0 Prehypertensive/Normotensive
Two-knee extension 20.0 (50.0%) 22.0 ± 4.0 NR 73.0 ± 14.0 25.0 ± 4.0
Stewart et al. (2007) [113] United States Handgrip 16.0 (56.3%) 24.5 ± NR NR NR 70.0 ± 14.0 24.0 ± 4.0 Normotensive
Tan et al. (2013) [114] United States Handgrip 11.0 (45.5%) 25.0 ± 3.0 NR NR NR NR Normotensive
Taylor et al. (2017) [115] England Wall squat 25.0 (0.0%) 44.6 ± 1.7 NR Physically inactive 89.1 ± 2.4 NR Prehypertensive
Turley (2005) [116] United States Handgrip 35.0 (0.0%) 20.2 ± 2.1 NR Untrained 78.1 ± 10.1 24.6 ± 2.9 Normotensive
35.0 (100.0%) 19.9 ± 1.8 62.8 ± 8.5 23.0 ± 2.6
Umeda et al. (2009) [117] United States Handgrip 23.0 (100.0%) 20.0 ± 2.0 NR Physically active NR NR Normotensive
Umeda et al. (2015) [118] United States Handgrip 14.0 (36.0%) 22.1 ± 2.9 African-Americans Recreationally active NR 26.02 ± 3.1 Normotensive
14.0 (36.0%) 21.9 ± 3.0 White (non-Hispanic) 24.06 ± 3.4
Van Huysduynen et al. (2004) [119] Netherlands Handgrip 41.0 (0.0%) 32.6 ± 11.2 NR Untrained/Trained NR NR Normotensive
Vaz et al. (1993) [120] India Handgrip 8.0 (NR) NR NR NR NR NR Normotensive
Vianna et al. (2012) [121] Brazil Handgrip 8.0 (0.0%) 25.0 ± 2.0 NR NR 78.0 ± 11.0 NR Normotensive
Vitcenda et al. (1990) [122] United States Deadlift 16.0 (0.0%) 27.0 ± 6.0 NR Untrained 75.0 ± 8.0 NR NR
Weippert et al. (2013) [123] Germany Leg press 23.0 (0.0%) 25.5 ± 2.6 NR Physically active 84.0 ± 7.7 24.3 ± 1.5 Normotensive
Wiles et al. (2018) [13] England Wall squat 26.0 (0.0%) 45.0 ± 8.0 NR Physically inactive 89.7 ± 12.3 NR Hypertensive
Williams (1991) [124] United States Handgrip 6.0 (0.0%) 26.0 ± 3.0 NR NR NR NR NR
Two-knee extension
Wright et al. (1999) [125] United States One-knee extension 15.0 (0.0%) 21.6 ± 1.2 African-American NR 82.5 ± 19.8 NR Normotensive
15.0 (100.0%) 27.7 ± 6.2 Asian American 62.1 ± 7.4
15.0 (0.0%) 27.8 ± 7.4 Caucasian American 69.0 ± 7.4
15.0 (100.0%) 27.0 ± 6.2 54.7 ± 5.4
15.0 (0.0%) 26.4 ± 7.0 83.2 ± 8.5
15 (100%) 25.2 ± 6.6 60.0 ± 10.5
Yamaji et al. (1983) [19] Japan Elbow flexion 20.0 (0.0%) 20.4 ± 1.5 NR NR/Trained 64.8 ± 8.2 NR Normotensive
One-knee extension
Note: Data presented as mean ± standard deviation. BMI, body mass index; NR, not reported.

The total number of participants was 2695, with a mean age ranging from 19.2 to 73.0 years. Most of the studies included only men (47.1%). More than half of the studies (56.9%) did not report the trainability status of the participants, and among the studies that reported this information, only 18.2% included trained participants and/or athletes.

Regarding BP level classification, 76.5% included only normotensive participants. In addition, only eight studies reported information regarding the number of users of antihypertensive medications. Regarding BP measurement protocols during exercise, the auscultatory, automatic, and finger photoplethysmography (Finometer) methods presented similar frequencies in the studies (30%). Concerning the moment of BP measurement, 66 studies (64.7%) performed it at the end of the exercise contraction, with 21 studies reporting that this measurement was performed in the final minute or final seconds of exercise, but it is not clear at what exact time this was done. In the other studies, the BP measurement was taken at different moments during exercise.

3.3 Characteristics of Exercise Protocols

Most studies used a single set (72.6%) and performed sets lasting up to 180 seconds (74%). Regarding exercise intensity, 61.9% of the studies performed sets with low intensities (i.e., ≤30% MVC) (Supplementary Material 2).

3.4 Overall Effect of Different Types of Isometric Exercise on Blood Pressure Response

All the details regarding the BP responses to the handgrip or other IE are shown in the Supplementary Material 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Table 2 shows the overall effects for each type of IE on the BP response. The greater increases in SBP were +64.5 mmHg (p ≤ 0.001) for the two-knee extension, +61.6 mmHg (p ≤ 0.001) for the deadlift, and +51.5 mmHg (p ≤ 0.001) for the leg press. These increases were higher than those for one-knee extension, plantar flexion, and torso effort exercises. The mean increases identified for the two-knee extension and deadlift exercises were statistically greater than those identified for the handgrip. For DBP, the greater increases were +52.2 mmHg (p ≤ 0.001) for the two-knee extension, and +43.4 mmHg; (p ≤ 0.001) for the squat. Differences were identified when the handgrip is compared to the two-knee extension, squat, and deadlift exercises. Moreover, statistical differences were also observed between the two-knee extension and deadlift exercises.

Table 2.Overall effects of different types of isometric exercise on blood pressure response.
Type of exercise N Mean difference Standard error Variance 95% CI Z-value p* I2 p¥
SBP (mmHg)
Handgrip 127 +33.4 1.8 3.2 29.9–36.9 18.6 0.0 99.2 0.0
Elbow flexion 8 +47.3 12.8 163.7 22.2–72.4 3.7 0.0 99.1 0.0
One-knee extension 17 +34.3 2.1 4.3 30.2–38.3 16.4 0.0 84.7 0.0
Two-knee extension 11 +64.5 5.9 35.2 52.8–76.1 10.9 0.0 96.1 0.0
Leg press 4 +51.5 11.0 121.1 29.9–73.0 4.7 0.0 94.7 0.0
Squat 3 +46.3 10.9 117.8 25.0–67.5 4.3 0.0 97.1 0.0
Plantar flexion 2 +23.3 4.0 15.9 15.5–31.1 5.8 0.0 53.4 0.1
Deadlift 13 +61.6 2.7 7.2 56.4–66.9 22.9 0.0 66.4 0.0
Torso effort 3 +20.8 6.9 47.8 7.2–34.3 3.0 0.0 99.9 0.0
DBP (mmHg)
Handgrip 112 +25.1 1.0 1.1 23.0–27.1 24.0 0.0 98.4 0.0
Elbow flexion 8 +22.4 2.7 7.6 17.0–27.7 8.1 0.0 83.8 0.0
One-knee extension 17 +26.4 1.9 3.6 22.7–30.1 14.0 0.0 87.3 0.0
Two-knee extension 11 +52.2 5.4 29.5 41.5–62.8 9.6 0.0 97.3 0.0
Leg press 4 +34.4 8.1 66.1 18.4–50.3 4.2 0.0 92.2 0.0
Squat 2 +43.4 6.5 42.2 30.7–56.2 6.7 0.0 94.5 0.0
Plantar flexion 2 +22.4 1.9 3.6 18.7–26.2 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.4
Deadlift 13 +34.4 1.9 3.7 30.6–38.1 17.8 0.0 79.0 0.0
Torso effort 3 +23.8 3.2 10.4 17.5–30.1 7.4 0.0 99.6 0.0
Note: Analyses performed with the random effects model. N, number of studies and subgroups per study analyzed; CI, confidence interval; I2, heterogeneity of studies. For the plantar flexion and torso effort exercises only one study was included in the analysis. *p concerns the main analysis (mean difference). ¥p concerns the heterogeneity analysis (I2).

For SBP, the largest differences were found between two-knee extension and torso effort (–48.6 mmHg; p < 0.001), two-knee extension and plantar flexion (–46.4 mmHg; p < 0.001). For the handgrip, the greatest differences were against two-knee extension (+36.1 mmHg; p < 0.001) and deadlift (+26.6 mmHg; p < 0.001). Regarding DBP, the largest differences were observed between two-knee extension and plantar flexion (–34.2 mmHg; p < 0.001), elbow flexion and two-knee extension (+33.0 mmHg; p < 0.001). For the handgrip, the greatest differences were against two-knee extension (+31.4 mmHg; p < 0.001) (Supplementary Material 7).

3.5 Effect of Comparing Handgrip and Two-Knee Extension Exercises

Two-knee extension promoted greater increases in SBP (+9.8 mmHg; p = 0.017; I2 = 74.5%, p ≤ 0.001) and DBP (+7.9 mmHg; p = 0.022; I2 = 68.6%, p = 0.002) compared to handgrip (Fig. 2). When performing sensitivity analysis, removing the study by Lewis et al. [77] from the meta-analysis, there was a reduction of the effect for SBP (+4.9 mmHg; p = 0.01; I2 = 0%, p = 0.429) and DBP (+7.9 mmHg; p ≤ 0.001; I2 = 62.5%, p = 0.014).

Fig. 2.

Comparison between isometric handgrip and two-knee extension exercises. Mean difference in systolic (A) and diastolic (B) BP between isometric handgrip and two-knee extension exercises. Estimation per study (black square). Overall estimate from random effects analyses (blue diamond). 95% CI indicates confidence interval. I2 indicates the heterogeneity of the studies.

3.6 Effect of Comparing Handgrip and Deadlift Exercises

Comparing handgrip and deadlift, greater increases were observed in SBP (+26.8 mmHg; p ≤ 0.001; I2 = 0%, p = 0.995) and DBP (+12.4 mmHg; p ≤ 0.001; I2 = 36.3%, p = 0.165) for the deadlift (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3.

Comparison between isometric handgrip and deadlift exercises. Mean difference in systolic (A) and diastolic (B) BP between isometric handgrip and land lift exercises. Estimation per study (black square). Overall estimate from fixed effects analyses (blue diamond). 95% CI indicates confidence interval. I2 indicates the heterogeneity of the studies.

3.7 Effect of Handgrip Exercise on Blood Pressure Response according to Participants Characteristics

For SBP, men (+34.5 mmHg; p ≤ 0.001), middle-aged/elderly adults (+41.3 mmHg; p ≤ 0.001), and hypertensive individuals (+39.6 mmHg; p ≤ 0.001) showed greater increases than their peers. For DBP, men (+26.6 mmHg; p ≤ 0.001) and middle-aged/elderly adults (+29.6 mmHg; p ≤ 0.001) presented higher increases than their peers. Analyzing only the studies that directly compared men and women for handgrip [23, 95, 109] it was observed greater increases for men only in DBP (+4.2 mmHg; p = 0.017, I2 = 9.5%, p = 0.356) (Table 3).

Table 3.Effect of isometric handgrip exercise on blood pressure response according to participants’ characteristics.
Subgroup N Mean difference Standard error Variance 95% CI Z-value p* I2 p¥
SBP (mmHg)
Sex
Men 59 +34.5 2.1 4.5 30.3–38.6 16.2 0.0 94.6 0.0
Women 14 +26.1 3.9 15.2 18.4–33.7 6.7 0.0 99.6 0.0
Age
Young 62 +31.3 2.1 4.5 27.2–35.5 14.7 0.0 95.9 0.0
Middle-aged/elderly 37 +41.3 2.1 4.4 37.1–45.4 19.6 0.0 95.0 0.0
BP level classification
Non-hypertensive 95 +30.7 2.1 4.3 26.7–34.8 14.9 0.0 99.3 0.0
Hypertensive 13 +39.6 2.2 4.7 35.3–43.8 18.2 0.0 71.8 0.0
DBP (mmHg)
Sex
Men 50 +26.6 3.1 9.5 20.5–32.6 8.6 0.0 98.4 0.0
Women 14 +20.4 2.9 8.4 14.7–26.0 7.0 0.0 99.3 0.0
Age
Young 55 +23.4 1.5 2.3 20.4–26.3 15.4 0.0 94.7 0.0
Middle-aged/elderly 36 +29.6 2.6 6.6 24.6–34.6 11.5 0.0 98.8 0.0
BP level classification
Non-hypertensive 80 +22.1 1.0 1.0 20.2–24.1 22.6 0.0 97.9 0.0
Hypertensive 13 +30.8 8.9 78.4 13.5–48.2 3.5 0.0 99.5 0.0
Note: Analyses performed with the random effects model. N, number of studies and subgroups per study analyzed; Young, studies that included adults with mean age up to 40 years; Middle-aged/elderly, studies that included adults with a mean 40 years; Non-Hypertension, studies that classified participants into normotensives and/or prehypertensive; CI, confidence interval; I2, heterogeneity of studies. *p concerns the main analysis (mean difference). ¥p concerns the heterogeneity analysis (I2).
3.8 Effect of Handgrip Exercise on Blood Pressure Response according to the Characteristics of Exercise Protocols

Higher intensities (>60% MVC) demonstrated the largest absolute increases in SBP (+55.8 mmHg; p ≤ 0.001) and DBP (+52.4 mmHg; p ≤ 0.001) compared to lower intensities (≥30% MVC) and similar increases compared to >30 and ≤60% of MVC. Intensities between >30 and ≤60% promoted greater increases for SBP (+40.7 mmHg; p ≤ 0.001) and DBP (+31.9 mmHg; p ≤ 0.001) compared to lower intensities. Acute BP responses to IE were similar when compared the different contraction durations (≤ 120 > 120 e ≤ 180 e >180 seconds) (Table 4).

Table 4.Effect of isometric handgrip exercise on blood pressure response according to the characteristics of the exercise protocols.
Subgroup N Mean difference Standard error Variance 95% CI Z-value p* I2 p¥
SBP (mmHg)
Intensity
≤ 30% 76 +27.5 1.7 2.9 24.2–30.9 16.3 0.0 98.6 0.0
> 30 e ≤ 60% 44 +40.7 1.9 3.5 37.0–44.3 21.8 0.0 92.7 0.0
>60% 7 +55.8 9.1 83.3 37.9–73.7 6.1 0.0 92.9 0.0
Duration
≤120 45 +35.5 2.6 6.8 30.4–40.7 13.6 0.0 96.6 0.0
> 120 e ≤ 180 48 +32.6 2.0 3.9 28.7–36.5 16.5 0.0 94.5 0.0
>180 27 +33.6 3.1 9.3 27.6–39.6 11.0 0.0 99.4 0.0
DBP (mmHg)
Intensity
≤30% 69 +20.1 1.6 2.5 17.0–23.2 12.6 0.0 98.7 0.0
> 30 e ≤ 60% 39 +31.9 1.5 2.2 29.0–34.8 21.4 0.0 93.8 0.0
>60% 4 +52.4 11.9 141.0 29.1–75.6 4.4 0.0 94.1 0.0
Duration
≤120 42 +24.5 1.4 1.9 21.8–27.2 17.9 0.0 94.2 0.0
> 120 e ≤ 180 42 +26.8 3.1 9.6 20.8–32.9 8.6 0.0 98.6 0.0
>180 21 +24.5 2.5 6.1 19.6–29.3 9.9 0.0 99.1 0.0
Note: Analyses performed with the random effects model. N, number of studies and subgroups per study analyzed; Intensity, percentage of MVC or MR; Duration, contraction time in seconds; CI, confidence interval; I2, heterogeneity of studies. *p concerns the main analysis (mean difference). ¥p concerns the heterogeneity analysis (I2).
3.9 Risk of bias

Fig. 4 describes the risk of bias for the seven studies included in the meta-analyses comparing BP response to handgrip and other IE.

Fig. 4.

Risk of bias analysis of studies that compared the BP response to handgrip exercise and other types of isometric exercise (n = 7).

4. Discussion

This study showed that exercises involving large muscle groups promoted the highest increases in BP among all IE types. These findings support the hypothesis that muscle mass interferes with the BP response to IE [27, 110, 126] possibly because of the greater activation of the central command, intramuscular pressure, and vascular occlusion generated [111, 127]. However, this relationship is still controversial since some studies suggest that the size of the muscle is not a determining factor for BP responses [42, 124], which are mainly influenced by the magnitude of the force exerted during contraction, especially when high percentages are reached [128].

Although the overall results of the present study for each IE alone showed higher increases for the exercises involving larger muscle groups, important characteristics of the exercise protocols, such as intensity, were not considered in the analyses. Thus, some studies adopting higher intensities may have accentuated these overall BP responses, since few studies were included in the analyses and the heterogeneity among them was high. Otherwise, in the analyses comparing handgrip and two-knee extension and deadlift exercises, the exercise protocols used were similar, which reduces the possible effect of the intensity and reinforces the role of muscle mass on the BP response.

Although the exercises with larger muscle groups showed greater increases than those with smaller muscle masses, when analyzing the studies individually, only the study by Williams [124] promoted an average increase in SBP above 250 mmHg, which is the cutoff point considered safe. However, this study performed an intensity of 100% MVC, had a small sample size and measured BP with the intra-arterial method, which affect the BP response identified. Moreover, adopting 120 mmHg as the safety value for DBP [129], some studies that showed values higher than this limit included hypertensive participants [31, 81, 95], high intensity exercise [44, 101, 124], long duration of contraction (above 120 seconds) [60, 98], very small sample sizes (6 and 7 participants), and sedentary individuals performing six sets of the exercise [42]

In the subgroup analyses, men showed higher increases for SBP and DBP in response to handgrip than women. It could be explained by the fact that the majority of studies included young men and women, since premenopausal women seem to present attenuation of sympathetic nervous activity, catecholamine release, mechanoreflex, and the degree of vasoconstriction during exercise compared to men of the same age [130, 131]. Otherwise, analyzing the studies that directly compared men and women, greater increases were observed for men only for DBP.

Furthermore, middle-aged/elderly adults showed higher mean increases for SBP and DBP than younger adults for the handgrip exercise. The elevated pressure response with age is still not a consensus, since some studies suggest that there is no exacerbation of this mechanism during healthy aging. However, it is known that the aging process is associated with several structural, hormonal, and functional changes, including increased arterial stiffness, peripheral vascular resistance, and sympathetic activity, as well as deterioration of endothelial function [132], which increases the risk of developing hypertension with advancing age [133]. Thus, in studies that included older participants, the prevalence of hypertension was also higher, which would help to explain, in part, these findings.

Higher increase in SBP was observed for hypertensive compared to non-hypertensive individuals during handgrip exercise, but not for DBP. Such response was expected since hypertensive individuals present autonomic imbalance, with sympathetic hyperactivation [134]. Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that we included in this review studies with medicated and non-medicated hypertensive individuals. The use of different classes of antihypertensive medications, at different times of the day, may have influenced the BP responses to IE. However, it was not possible to perform an analysis considering this variable due to the lack of information available in the studies.

Regarding the characteristics of the exercise protocol, only intensity influenced SBP and DBP during handgrip. These findings support the hypothesis that higher intensities promote BP responses to exercise [20, 128]. Although the studies with high intensities (>60% MVC) showed higher increases for SBP and DBP than those with moderate intensities (>30 and ≤60% MVC), these were not significantly different. However, it is believed that this result is explained, in part, by the small number of studies included in the analyses with high intensities and also by the high heterogeneity among them.

Concerning the practical application of the present study, it should be considered that even those IE that involve greater muscle mass do not seem to bring great cardiovascular risks to the practitioner. Such findings contradict our initial hypothesis that exercise involving large muscle groups would cause exaggerated responses in BP. On the other hand, those exercises with smaller muscle masses promoted lower BP responses, proving to be even safer from the cardiovascular point of view. Furthermore, during handgrip exercise, it is relevant to have a special attention for men, hypertensive and elderly population, and for the exercise performed at higher intensities (>60% MVC). Although subgroup analyses have not been performed for the other types of exercises, it is believed that this attention is also applicable to them, especially those involving larger muscle masses. However, further investigations are needed to confirm.

Therefore, when using IE as a strategy for the treatment of hypertension, it is necessary to considerer some characteristics of the patient. For those hypertensive individuals controlled by medication and/or who do not have other comorbidity, the choice of the type of IE is more flexible, and exercises with different muscle masses can be adopted, as long as the general precautions regarding the prescription of exercises for hypertensive individuals are taken (i.e., avoid the Valsalva maneuver during the effort). However, if the hypertensive individual is not controlled and/or presents complications or comorbidities, it seems more cautious to choose exercises involving smaller muscle masses.

Considering this, IE can be considered as a complementary non-pharmacological strategy for the prevention and treatment of hypertension in public health recommendations. However, more studies are needed to ensure the cardiovascular safety of different types of this exercise and, thus, to add it in exercise guidelines to the same extent as dynamic resistance exercise [35].

This systematic review has some limitations. The studies included in this review were conducted at different time periods and considered different guidelines for classifying subjects as hypertensive, which may result in different criteria for classifying hypertension. This, however, cannot be corrected considering BP means, since these must be influenced by antihypertensive medications. The heterogeneity among the majority of studies was high (I2>75%), which reduces the validity of combining the individual results of the studies. Indirect comparisons were made between different exercise types. However, there is a need for direct randomized controlled trials. Moreover, few studies were included for the analysis of the comparison between handgrip exercise and other types of exercise, and it is necessary to include more studies with greater homogeneity in order to obtain more consistent results. A lack of standardization regarding when BP was acutely measured is a limitation of this work, since the studies took this measurement at different moments. Furthermore, there is a lack of exploration of study-level moderators that may influence heterogeneity, such as MVC for handgrip. The subgroup analyses were performed only for the handgrip exercise, due to the small number of studies with other exercise types. It is also important to note that the analyses were performed considering sex and age separately, therefore, it was not possible to describe the results for men and women stratified by age due to the small number of studies that included participants with these characteristics.

The strength of the present study is its originality, since this is the first systematic review with meta-analysis that sought to investigate the BP responses during the performance of different types of IE and to compare them with handgrip. Considering this, it was not possible to compare the findings of this review with those of other systematic reviews.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, IE involving larger muscle groups elicit greater BP responses than those involving smaller muscle masses, especially in men, middle-aged/elderly adults and hypertensive individuals. The present study supports the literature regarding the cardiovascular safety of IE involving small muscle groups, especially at low intensities, and shed light on the investigation regarding cardiovascular safety during the performance of other types of IE in adults. However, due to the high heterogeneity of the studies, the results of this systematic review should be interpreted with caution, and further investigations are needed. Prospective studies should directly compare BP responses during various types of IE in different populations and different exercise protocol.

Author Contributions

JCC—Conception and Design, Analysis and Interpretation, Data Collection, Writing the Manuscript. GTB—Analysis and Interpretation, Data Collection, Writing the Manuscript. ACNB, ACAC—Data Collection, Writing the Manuscript. MAC, BQF—Critical Revision. RMR-D—Critical Revision. AMG—Conception and Design, Critical Revision, Overall responsibility. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Acknowledgment

On behalf of the co-authors we would like to express our appreciation to the reviewers for their contribution through constructive criticisms in improving the quality of our scientific work.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

Publisher’s Note: IMR Press stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.