MJacobson
09-04-2004, 04:03 AM
I was told to stop taking Triamterene, the doc thinks its lowered my blood pressure. The first time it was 120/50 and the second was in the 120 range/the 70 range. Is that too low? Then he wanted to check it when laying down and it was higher. He seemed to think that meant my blood pressure is a little low. His reasoning was that normal rates are higher when standing than laying. Is this all accurate and is this overall anything to worry about? Also, are the blood pressure machines at stores good sources for checking blood pressure? I was thinking mine wasn't a problem because it didn't look so bad at the stores.
Sponsor
zuzu8
09-04-2004, 02:38 PM
Your systolic (top #) readings of 120 are great.
120/70 is a textbook normal and desirable blood pressure reading.
The diastolic (bottom #) reading of 50 is a little low but if it is temporary and not sustained, it shouldn't be cause for alarm.
Yes, BP lying down is usually lower than when standing.
I notice from other posts you've made on other boards that you're trying Dyazide (fixed combo drug of HCTZ and Triamterene, both are diuretics) for a vestibular disorder.
If it drops your BP too low, it could make you feel more lightheaded.
Store machines are usually not reliable (although you might get lucky and find one). If you need to track your own BP on a regular basis, it's best to buy your own home monitor. The new ones are digital, fully automatic-inflatable and very accurate.
If you continue on Triametrene (potassium-sparing diuretic), your doc should take a blood test to make sure your potassium levels aren't climbing.
zuzu xx
P.S. If the Triametrene is helping you with your vestibular disorder and you feel better on it, I would not worry about the BP readings. Low BP is something most people would be happy to have. It only becomes an issue if it causes symptoms.
120/70 is a textbook normal and desirable blood pressure reading.
The diastolic (bottom #) reading of 50 is a little low but if it is temporary and not sustained, it shouldn't be cause for alarm.
Yes, BP lying down is usually lower than when standing.
I notice from other posts you've made on other boards that you're trying Dyazide (fixed combo drug of HCTZ and Triamterene, both are diuretics) for a vestibular disorder.
If it drops your BP too low, it could make you feel more lightheaded.
Store machines are usually not reliable (although you might get lucky and find one). If you need to track your own BP on a regular basis, it's best to buy your own home monitor. The new ones are digital, fully automatic-inflatable and very accurate.
If you continue on Triametrene (potassium-sparing diuretic), your doc should take a blood test to make sure your potassium levels aren't climbing.
zuzu xx
P.S. If the Triametrene is helping you with your vestibular disorder and you feel better on it, I would not worry about the BP readings. Low BP is something most people would be happy to have. It only becomes an issue if it causes symptoms.
alptraum
09-06-2004, 02:19 AM
zuzu, what do you think about recent med articles that state that 120/80 isn't good enough, but rather 110/70? I honestly haven't looked into it very much rather than hearing it in the news a few times, so not sure of it's clinical backing or what developments gave way to this.
zip2play
09-06-2004, 08:50 AM
M
It's not too low unless it makes you feel dizzy (that's FUNNY to say in your case:D:D).
Any hoo, are you getting a good response with your triamterene? I've had bouts of vertigo and constant tinnitus and HCTZ doesn't help much. I've done a lot better with meclizine when I need it.
It's not too low unless it makes you feel dizzy (that's FUNNY to say in your case:D:D).
Any hoo, are you getting a good response with your triamterene? I've had bouts of vertigo and constant tinnitus and HCTZ doesn't help much. I've done a lot better with meclizine when I need it.
MJacobson
09-07-2004, 02:11 AM
I haven't really noticed any difference. Does it mean that its not really working if you still have the 24/7 dizziness/imbalance feeling?
zip2play
09-07-2004, 07:52 AM
Yeah,
That's pretty much what it means...my really really good ENT said that a diuretic SOMETIMES helps (not a sterling recommendation.)
That's pretty much what it means...my really really good ENT said that a diuretic SOMETIMES helps (not a sterling recommendation.)
zuzu8
09-08-2004, 05:28 AM
zuzu, what do you think about recent med articles that state that 120/80 isn't good enough, but rather 110/70? I honestly haven't looked into it very much rather than hearing it in the news a few times, so not sure of it's clinical backing or what developments gave way to this.
ALPTRAUM-
I've cobbled together, below, what info I've gleaned from all my reading, some of which I've posted in dribs and drabs prior to this. Here goes....(and please don't kill the messenger!)
The new guidelines come from the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC) who, as we all now know, recently updated their OWN criteria for the prevention and treatment of hypertension.
JNC reports have been published at regular intervals for more than 30 years and this latest report is called JNC 7.
SO. The new guidelines for diagnosing high blood pressure are:
Obviously, the ultimate goal would be Normal- i.e.Below 120/80 ( that's a pretty tall order for most of us once we hit, um, shall I say (ahem)..middle age(!#@!) but if we are otherwise healthy, it's not unattainable..)
Pre-hypertension- 120-139/80/89 (Shiny new category!) Meds are NOT recommended for this group. Lifestyle changes are, to PREVENT hypertension as we age.
Stage 1 hypertension- 140-159/90-99
Stage 2 hypertension- 160 or higher/ 100 or higher
The new research culminating in the latest guidelines concluded that the risk of developing cardiovascular disease doubles every time the diastolic blood pressure increases by 10 mmHg and/or the systolic blood pressure increases by 20 mmHg. They simply postulate that this increased risk starts at 115/75 mmHg, not 110/70.
The guidelines were prepared by a special committee of the NHBPEP, (National High Blood Pressure Education Program) which represents 46 professional, voluntary, and Federal organizations, and reviewed by 33 national hypertension experts and policy leaders. The NHBPEP issues new guidelines when warranted by scientific advances. The last guidelines were issued in November 1997. (It was simply known as JNC V1).
Those were the guidelines doctors until now were using.
The main reason for updating is the emergence of important new data. In this case, a number of major clinical trials in hypertension had been completed in recent years. These formed a basis for reviewing the existing recommendations on the evaluation and management of patients with hypertension. The most visible of the new studies was the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT), but a number of other key trials including the second Australian National Blood Pressure Study (ANBP2), the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint Reduction (LIFE) study, and others, all had a major influence.
SO, it was decided that all the new information accumulated since '97 demanded a 7th report.
The pharmaceutical companies are NOT part of this picture.
Funding came from various sources: The U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Resources, including The NIH (National Institutes of Health), and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute.
What the report is recommending it is that if our pressure is in the new "prehypertension" range, it it still "normal" but not "optimal"...and that we should no longer be complacent in that range but incorporate serious lifestyle changes into our lives...reduce salt intake, regular exercise, lose weight etc.
Most doctors until now have not been addressing this at all. And now the JNC7 report is urging them that they (and we) should.
Are we having fun yet?
Link to the JNC Report:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/hypertension/index.htm
zuzu xx
ALPTRAUM-
I've cobbled together, below, what info I've gleaned from all my reading, some of which I've posted in dribs and drabs prior to this. Here goes....(and please don't kill the messenger!)
The new guidelines come from the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC) who, as we all now know, recently updated their OWN criteria for the prevention and treatment of hypertension.
JNC reports have been published at regular intervals for more than 30 years and this latest report is called JNC 7.
SO. The new guidelines for diagnosing high blood pressure are:
Obviously, the ultimate goal would be Normal- i.e.Below 120/80 ( that's a pretty tall order for most of us once we hit, um, shall I say (ahem)..middle age(!#@!) but if we are otherwise healthy, it's not unattainable..)
Pre-hypertension- 120-139/80/89 (Shiny new category!) Meds are NOT recommended for this group. Lifestyle changes are, to PREVENT hypertension as we age.
Stage 1 hypertension- 140-159/90-99
Stage 2 hypertension- 160 or higher/ 100 or higher
The new research culminating in the latest guidelines concluded that the risk of developing cardiovascular disease doubles every time the diastolic blood pressure increases by 10 mmHg and/or the systolic blood pressure increases by 20 mmHg. They simply postulate that this increased risk starts at 115/75 mmHg, not 110/70.
The guidelines were prepared by a special committee of the NHBPEP, (National High Blood Pressure Education Program) which represents 46 professional, voluntary, and Federal organizations, and reviewed by 33 national hypertension experts and policy leaders. The NHBPEP issues new guidelines when warranted by scientific advances. The last guidelines were issued in November 1997. (It was simply known as JNC V1).
Those were the guidelines doctors until now were using.
The main reason for updating is the emergence of important new data. In this case, a number of major clinical trials in hypertension had been completed in recent years. These formed a basis for reviewing the existing recommendations on the evaluation and management of patients with hypertension. The most visible of the new studies was the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT), but a number of other key trials including the second Australian National Blood Pressure Study (ANBP2), the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint Reduction (LIFE) study, and others, all had a major influence.
SO, it was decided that all the new information accumulated since '97 demanded a 7th report.
The pharmaceutical companies are NOT part of this picture.
Funding came from various sources: The U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Resources, including The NIH (National Institutes of Health), and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute.
What the report is recommending it is that if our pressure is in the new "prehypertension" range, it it still "normal" but not "optimal"...and that we should no longer be complacent in that range but incorporate serious lifestyle changes into our lives...reduce salt intake, regular exercise, lose weight etc.
Most doctors until now have not been addressing this at all. And now the JNC7 report is urging them that they (and we) should.
Are we having fun yet?
Link to the JNC Report:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/hypertension/index.htm
zuzu xx
CASSIEBEL
09-08-2004, 07:14 PM
Thanks for the info Zuzu,
But I have yet another question. Some of us (like me) who are taking meds already have #'s in the pre-hypertension catagory. Does that mean we are doing OK or should we be trying to get the #'s lower?
My Bp runs from... around 114/61 through 144/74 on an average day.
Cass
But I have yet another question. Some of us (like me) who are taking meds already have #'s in the pre-hypertension catagory. Does that mean we are doing OK or should we be trying to get the #'s lower?
My Bp runs from... around 114/61 through 144/74 on an average day.
Cass