It appears you have not yet Signed Up with our community. To Sign Up for free, please click here....



High & Low Blood Pressure Message Board
Post New Thread   Closed Thread
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-21-2005, 07:45 AM   #1
Senior Veteran
(male)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,484
Lenin HB UserLenin HB UserLenin HB UserLenin HB UserLenin HB UserLenin HB User
SYSTOLIC vs. DIASTOLIC

A recent post of ZUZU's got me thinking about this subject so I thought I'd open a discussion on which is/should be more important.
Systolic is the highest instantaneous pressure that the heartbeat can generate in the largest arteries of the body; diastolic is the lowest that the pressure drops between the systole peaks. If you look at a graph of pressure you see that most of the graph is far closer to the diastolic than the systolic.
So in the past, the consensus was that contol of diastolic was the best standard for good blood pressure management (and judgement about WHETHER to mange at all.)
In recent years, emphasis has been put more and more on SYSTOLIC pressure. The logic is that a STROKE or blown artery, which is probably the most devastating event that BP can generate would occur only at a SYSTOLE, i.e., a hose will burst at it's HIGHEST pressure, not its lowest.
Little by little I think I am spotting a revival of interest in the diastolic as the more important. These swings can make us patients a bit dizzy, eh wot?

Another concept that has reared its head in the last decade is "PULSE PRESSURE" defined as the difference between systolic and diastolic. It is thought to be a measurement of arterial "stiffness" and may be related to the amount of plaque and calcification that had "hardened" the arterial walls. (Any oldies might remember the term "hardeniing of the arteries" which was loosely tossed around to mean everything from heart disease to senility.) Of course a high systolic has the most impact on amplifying this "stiffness."

Here's my take on the matter, which probably differs from some current norms. I think that diastolic control is very important because, it's the ENDLESS, unremitting pressure on the delicate tubules in the kidney that is a very dangerous aspect of blood pressure. It's also the one aspect of blood pressure that is self perpetuating, i.e., hypertension>>kidney damage>>hypertension.
The pulse pressure, while an interesting phenomenon indicating likely vascular damage, is only illustrative. Controlling pulse pressure (basically, systolic control) won't reverse the arterial damage or the actual "stiffness" just the ability to notice it readily...like painting your speedometer black won't make the car go slower, just your ability to determine the speed.

Of course, nobody could deny the huge stroke risk of a systolic over 200, but using a handful of drugs to get a 145 or 150 down to 135 might not be as wise as some practitioners think. There seems to be some evidence that lowering diastolic (inevitable with these drugs) below 80, or even 82 if I remember correctly, shows a detrimental effect on life expectancy (J-curve phenomenon).

How do you feel about the subject of systolic/diastolic? Any interesting study results you've seen? Anything anecdotal?

Last edited by Lenin; 01-21-2005 at 12:21 PM.

 
Sponsors Lightbulb
   
Old 01-21-2005, 09:59 AM   #2
Senior Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 673
mgraylorn HB User
Re: SYSTOLIC vs. DIASTOLIC

I had a routine followup visit for my hypertension just this past Tuesday. I have "white coat", but my pressure was pretty good, 127/87. (The doctor had relocated to a new building, maybe my office pressure will be lower now, lol!) At home I average around 116/65, but sometimes a lot lower, and I told her that. She told me something that confused me, she said, "Just try to keep it below 130/85 for a resting rate most of the time." At home I am almost always much lower than that for a resting reading. This makes me wonder if I am over medicated.

I specifically asked what was current thinking, systolic or diastolic more important, and I asked about pulse pressure. She said pulse pressure was an old outdated concept and that neither systolic or diastolic were more important - if either one of them was too high then that was a problem.

I like my doctor and I think she is pretty sharp and current with the literature. I'm not putting her words out as gospel, but that is what I was told.

I guess I should add that she was probably talking about normal people like me without underlying medical conditions beyond hpertension.

Last edited by mgraylorn; 01-21-2005 at 10:03 AM.

 
Old 01-21-2005, 12:04 PM   #3
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,003
Random2 HB User
Re: SYSTOLIC vs. DIASTOLIC

I don't think that any of the GP's know what is what. They keep changing their minds. They keep changing the guidelines & GP's have a reduced role in today's society. If everyone with high readings at the doc. took b/p meds. 50% of the population would be zombies. I am going to a specialist to see if they have some knowledge. I am tired of having more knowledge about B/P than my GP. Anything under 130/85 is alright??? I thought that 115/75 were the new guidelines? Numbers are just numbers.....unless you are like 190/110.

 
Old 01-21-2005, 12:27 PM   #4
Senior Veteran
(male)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,484
Lenin HB UserLenin HB UserLenin HB UserLenin HB UserLenin HB UserLenin HB User
Re: SYSTOLIC vs. DIASTOLIC

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgraylorn
) At home I average around 116/65, but sometimes a lot lower, and I told her that. She told me something that confused me, she said, "Just try to keep it below 130/85 for a resting rate most of the time." At home I am almost always much lower than that for a resting reading. This makes me wonder if I am over medicated.
mgraylorn,

Two points:
A. CAN I HAVE YOUR DOCTOR...PLEASE PLEASE! How logical she is, saying that aiming for 130/85 is good control.
B. More seriously, if I were you, getting a consistent 116/65 at home, I would definitely cut my dosage starting with the meds that are most bothersome; if none are, then I'd cut the most expensive (usually the ARB or the Norvasc)

Last edited by Lenin; 01-21-2005 at 12:28 PM.

 
Old 01-21-2005, 12:47 PM   #5
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,003
Random2 HB User
Re: SYSTOLIC vs. DIASTOLIC

Lenin,

I agree. I want her GP as well.

If I average 112-116 over 62-68 with a pulse rate of 52-58 on 100 MGS of Atenolol & 5/20 of Lotrel would you advise me to do the same thing??? I'm only 34, 5' 11" 150 & have had bad side effects ever since being on the meds, especially the Atenolol. I am going to a specialist on my own freewill, because GP's don't seem to understand BP (at least the 3 that I have gone to). I can get readings like 156/86 at the GP, but never ever outside of the G/P. I have 300 readings over 2 years to prove it. I have white-coat & anxiety.

 
Old 01-21-2005, 01:24 PM   #6
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: western ny
Posts: 944
jtu91952 HB User
Re: SYSTOLIC vs. DIASTOLIC

Heck, i'd settle for a bp of 130/70 or 80 anything even if i had to take one or two bp meds. But im taking three stron bp meds and still get high reading such as 161/84.

Sometimes it even goes up to 204/85. This mmakes no sense to me.

 
Old 01-21-2005, 01:54 PM   #7
Senior Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 673
mgraylorn HB User
Re: SYSTOLIC vs. DIASTOLIC

I'm thinking about cutting back on one of them. I take tiazac (cardizem a calcium channel blocker) at 180mg which I think is its lowest dosage. It is a capsule, so I can't cut it. The other is clonidine at .1mg 3 times a day. I'm thinking of going to twice a day on that one. I did that a couple of times on weekends with no problem. I tried today to wait 12 hours after my nightime dose, but had to take it after 11 hours due to some withdrawal symptoms. Either that or it could have been hormonal. Clonidine helps those symptoms too. After taking the .1mg later than normal, my blood pressure and pulse have been higher than normal today. I just took my bp, 144/81 pulse 92. Pulse today has ranged from 71 to 117 resting. On this drug combo resting pulse is usually in the 60s. Guess I go back to 3 times a day today.

 
Old 01-21-2005, 02:06 PM   #8
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,003
Random2 HB User
Re: SYSTOLIC vs. DIASTOLIC

I'm getting 112-116 over 62-66 on Lotrel 5/20 and Atenolol 100 MGS with a pulse rate of 52-58. I feel like junk with all of the side-effects & after I see the specialist on 2/16, I better be weaned off of these meds. or put on a small dose of something with no side-effects. 2 years is enough...

 
Old 01-22-2005, 06:54 AM   #9
Senior Veteran
(male)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,484
Lenin HB UserLenin HB UserLenin HB UserLenin HB UserLenin HB UserLenin HB User
Re: SYSTOLIC vs. DIASTOLIC

Personally, I wouldn't medicate my diastolic into the 60's. There simply is no good reason to do so. I'm almost certain it does more harm than good.

Axe,
You have to decide whether your doctors are in charge or you're in charge. After that HARD decision all the rest are easy.

mgraylorn,
My, that clonidine seems to be quite the addictive little bugger! I think many people who ake it like to take it at night because it's something of a sleep inducer. It's one of the few I've never taken so I don't know much about it. I wouldn't worry too much about the rebound pulse rate...I'm sure it's temporary (and I KNOW it uses calories)

Last edited by Lenin; 01-22-2005 at 06:57 AM.

 
Old 01-22-2005, 12:31 PM   #10
Senior Veteran
(female)
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: California, U.S.A.
Posts: 3,091
zuzu8 HB Userzuzu8 HB Userzuzu8 HB Userzuzu8 HB Userzuzu8 HB Userzuzu8 HB User
Re: SYSTOLIC vs. DIASTOLIC

Lenin,

Re: systolic vs diastolic and pulse pressure, there are some doozy articles I found that cost 45 smackeroos to access...(More than 3 month's supply of my Diovan!).

A lot of articles I DID manage to read, refer to the Framingham study conclusions that with increasing age...

"...there was a gradual shift from DBP to SBP and then to PP as predictors of CHD risk. In patients <50 years of age, DBP was the strongest predictor. Age 50 to 59 years was a transition period when all 3 BP indexes were comparable predictors, and from 60 years of age on, DBP was negatively related to CHD risk so that PP became superior to SBP."

From Circulation 2001. Interesting info about half way down on the hemodynamic mechanisms of risk:

http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/103/9/1245

zuzu xx

 
Old 01-22-2005, 04:09 PM   #11
Senior Veteran
(male)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,484
Lenin HB UserLenin HB UserLenin HB UserLenin HB UserLenin HB UserLenin HB User
Re: SYSTOLIC vs. DIASTOLIC

WOW Zuzu,
That last sentence from the ABSTRACT is a doozy:
Quote:
When both SBP and DBP were considered jointly, the former was directly and the latter was inversely related to CHD risk in the oldest age group
It really DOES say that the higher the diastolic the better in the elderly.

Anyways, the gist is that the older we get the more a high pulse pressure indicates a cardiac risk. But INDICATES is the operative word. What is INDICATED is arterial damage and all the BP lowering in the world isn't likely to make it better; the high Systolic and pulse pressures are EFFECTS rather than CAUSES.

An analogy: an itchy rash is indicative of second stage syphilis, but the benadryl or cortisone that makes the rash stop itching won't prolong life or alter the course of the disease.

p.s, Now HOW in blue blazes to they hope to manage a treatment for the elderly that LOWERS systolic but raises diastolic. I guess in the real world, they DON'T! Replace the vascular system I guess.

I enjoyed reading the article, ZUZU.

Last edited by Lenin; 01-22-2005 at 04:12 PM.

 
Old 01-22-2005, 07:07 PM   #12
Senior Veteran
(female)
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: California, U.S.A.
Posts: 3,091
zuzu8 HB Userzuzu8 HB Userzuzu8 HB Userzuzu8 HB Userzuzu8 HB Userzuzu8 HB User
Re: SYSTOLIC vs. DIASTOLIC

Lenin,

With a smile, I just have to add this (with apologies to Bill):

I guess it all depends on what the meaning of the word indicates indicates.

zuzu xx

 
Closed Thread

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Board Replies Last Post
high systolic reading debra689 High & Low Blood Pressure 3 10-22-2008 08:42 AM
Fit 20yrld:Can my systolic be high simply because I hate the process of testing? noty High & Low Blood Pressure 6 05-30-2008 07:32 AM
Isolated Systolic Hypertension (ISH) FRANKNZL High & Low Blood Pressure 4 12-02-2007 01:59 AM
Lone High systolic? Gimli High & Low Blood Pressure 3 11-27-2007 11:17 PM
High Systolic, Low Diastolic, Why? Hux High & Low Blood Pressure 12 09-19-2007 09:37 AM




Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




Sign Up Today!

Ask our community of thousands of members your health questions, and learn from others experiences. Join the conversation!

I want my free account

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:43 AM.



Site owned and operated by HealthBoards.comô
Terms of Use © 1998-2014 HealthBoards.comô All rights reserved.
Do not copy or redistribute in any form!