Blood pressure monitors

[MrEd]

Be aware of that most ‘civilian’ versions are not accurate. Whe wrist mounted ones are the worst. Even expensive ones can vary a large % up anddown, or be simply off by a %.

Get a stethoscope and spygmomanometer. You know, the cuff thingy you plow up with a rubber ball. That is the most exact way to measure your BP.

Wife has a high BP, monitors herself. We wasted cash on those electronic monitors, but our doc told us to back to old tech.

Not many docs or nurses use electronics. Not accurate, readings vary hugely.

This is quite good, I am an ITU/cardiac nurse and for routine blood pressures in the cardiac day unit we use the auto kit but when we have reason to suspect it’s off, or the patient is ‘unwell’ or some medical emergency we switch to sphyg and steth as it’s way more accurate and often faster (in a good clinicians hands)

 

[Paul_B]

I'm not a good clinician, what's best for me?

 

[Janne]

Practice.
Does not matter which system.

Doing the oldfashioned way is simple. The modern way simple too.
You need two tools with the old tech. One tool with the modern tech. Plus batteries.
Batteries in the machine plus a fresh spare set.

 

[MrEd]

I'm not a good clinician, what's best for me?

Omron and similar available from pharmacies.

Use it to track the trend, and if you have blood pressure problems it’s worh getting it done at the gp now and again.
Bear in mind calibration, my M-in-L was using a 7 year old out-of calibration machine and it was showing much higher than the calibrated ‘pro-spec’ one at the gp.

Record your trends in a book or something so you can show it to you doc

 

[Paul_B]

How do you know if such a device is worth getting?

I guessing most on here have medical conditions that their doctor recommends self monitoring. Or at least self monitoring gives you a degree of confidence or reassurance. Age is possibly such that you're a higher risk for certain conditions indicated by changes in BP.

Personally I had low BP until maybe 6 to 10 years ago (now more forties). Since the change to normal BP it's pretty constant. One is at the top end the other is middle of what I understand to be acceptable. GP, when she had reason to measure, seems OK. Except for a few cases of white coat syndrome.

So whilst I'm interested in looking into BP monitoring I don't know if it's even worth it. It's kind of the same with all self monitoring, without the right knowledge to interpret data it's likely worthless. Of course if you're only collecting data for a doctor to interpret then there's some point but that's probably because of a medical condition under treatment or investigation.

Back to my original question, how do you know if such a device is worth getting?

 

[mrcharly]

They are worth getting (IMO) if:
There is a family history (several family members) of BP issues
You have a diagnosed or suspected problem
You have had your BP checked and the reading was well out of ordinary range.

 

[Janne]

Unless youhave a diagnosed heart condition I would not worry about monitoring the BP.
What is the point?

 

[Paul_B]

That's my view, what's the point of you've no signs of a problem. Assuming you know what signs to look for of course.

Guess I'll nick my dad's one every so often and save my money.

 

[santaman2000]

That's my view, what's the point of you've no signs of a problem. Assuming you know what signs to look for of course.......

High blood pressure is called :the silent killer" precisely because symptoms usually don't manifest until too late. Headaches could be a warning but often the first symptom is a stroke or heart attack. That said, unless your doctor recommends home monitoring I'd just go with the semi annual check-ups at the doctor's office.

 

[Paul_B]

I'm 45, doctors aren't interested in regular checkups until you're at least 50. Even then they prefer to have a high risk for something before they commit to regular checkups.

At least that's always been my surgery's practise and it's considered the best surgery in the town I live in.

It does annoy me a bit having seen a famous individual who died of the very condition our family is high risk of getting while being some 4 years younger than me.

Still, at least it's not BP related.

PS off topic but does anyone here in there 40s or less get their BP checked on every gp visit? Mine rarely measures my BP.

 

[Nomad64]

Back to my original question, how do you know if such a device is worth getting?

Monitors are cheap and if not as accurate as one beng operated by a trained clinician should certainly show trends and allow you to take your BP under consistently controlled conditions - before caffeine and day to day stresses such as a rush to the GP surgery get a chance to skew the reading.

I have an Omron wrist mounted monitor (I understand that arm mounted ones are more accurate) bought many years ago after I was warned that my BP was creeping into the range that could be a cause for concern. Whether or not the monitor was 100% accurate, taking and recording daily (or at least regular) readings and seeing the way in which a few improvements in diet and lifestyle brought my BP down into the (very) healthy range as confirmed at the next GP visit.

I don’t use it regularly now but if my trousers start getting a bit tight, I start using the monitor and scales and jot down the results as part of the process of getting things back on track.

If you are able to, giving blood regularly gets you a free BP check by a trained nurse, a cuppa and biscuit. I used to donate platelets every two or three weeks and got a fairly thorough health check each time - a bit time consuming but very satisfying if you can do it.

A few years ago, after a couple of days feeling really cr@p with what I had self-diagnosed as acute man-flu, I decided to check my BP with the Omron. I can’t remember what the BP readings were but they looked “wrong” and my HR was in the 190s. After checking manually that the HR was seriously high, I made an emergency appointment to see my GP who looked a little sceptical but after a quick ECG was on the phone to A&E arranging me to be fast tracked through triage.

All very exciting and a bit worrying but after many tests including being fitted with 24 hour monitoring device (which I wore while out on a 40 mile bike ride) and eventually getting to see a consultant cardiologist, the conclusion was that heart, lungs and just about everything else were in good to very good nick but I had a susceptibility to atrial fibrillation (heart going like the clappers but out of synch) which can be triggered by excess caffeine. Caffeine intake now significantly lowered and no repeats. The anti-coagelents used in platelet donation may have been a factor but sadly despite the cardiologist telling them that there was no issue with me giving whole blood the Blood & Transplant Sevice won’t let me donate.

FWIW, it turns out that my mother has the same issue but since well into her 70s she was still wasting my inheritance on trekking trips in Nepal and Bhutan and now in her 80s is still clocking up getting on for 1000 miles a year walking including UK long distance footpaths and trekking in Europe, I’m reasonably optimistic about the prognosis.

What’s the worst that can happen if you use BP monitor at home? You will be £20 or so out of pocket and they don’t take up much space if eventually consigned to the kitchen drawer. On the plus side, if the readings give you concern, you can go and get your BP checked by a grownup at a GP surgery or walk in centre.

 

[Paul_B]

Use a hrm in a tracker. It's a good tracker of your health in that if my RHR starts going up I know I'm fighting a bug. Sometimes I'm aware of that before the RHR goes up but other times it's the RHR rise that happens first. Mind you another good indicator is my commuting time. Whenever I get poor times despite being well hydrated and sufficiently fed it's the third factor of fighting a new bug usually.

Would BP, even an inaccurate one, really be of much benefit of you're already monitoring health and fitness by other metrics? As my partner says if you're in tune with your body you tend to know instinctively when something is wrong.

 

[santaman2000]

Yeah they check my BP on every visit (whatever the reason for the visit) as soon as you're old enough for the cuff to fit. It's been the norm since the late 1970s to get all vitals (weight, temperature, BP, and more recently your oxygenation) For a while in the early 1980s even every trip to the dentist was cause for a BP check. The only exception I can readily think of is if you just get in a walk-in line for your flu shot or something similar.

I suspect most people here don't get regular check-ups either but that's just because they don't schedule them (generally doctors aren't going to twist your arm to get you to go) but it IS the recommended practice. It's not up to the doctor to make the decision; just the recommendations. Personally I was diagnosed with high BP in my mid 20s and placed on meds. Anytime there's a long term use of any meds it triggers a regular (every 3 months) check-up with blood draw and an annual full physical (unless the patient declines) It was on one of these check-ups they discovered my diabetes in my early 40s.

Now because of the diabetes my schedule is:
-Diabetic check-up with labs and visit with either my doctor or diabetic education nurse every 3 months
-Complete physical with the doctor and full lbs at least once a year
-Podiatrist every 8 months
-Optometrist or opthomologist annually
-Cardiologist every 2 years
-An increase in dental cleanings from twice a year (normal, healthy people) to three times a year (4 are preferable) for diabetics

 

[Janne]

Those schedules and recommendations vary between countries. I find that the US system is better for the patient, plus for the entity that pays. In Europe I feel we do not do enough preventive checks if they entail a hospital visit.. Had we had the same recommendations for a colonoscopy, my father would still be alive.

 

[Janne]

Family history is very important for heart related issues.

 

[santaman2000]

Those schedules and recommendations vary between countries. I find that the US system is better for the patient, plus for the entity that pays. In Europe I feel we do not do enough preventive checks if they entail a hospital visit.. Had we had the same recommendations for a colonoscopy, my father would still be alive.

Thanks for reminding me; my colonoscopy is every 5 years since age 50, but only because I have a family history (an uncle) For normal healthy people it's only every 10 years. For people with a family history closer than mine (immediate family) it's every year. That (the colonoscopy) is the only one I've mentioned that requires a hospital visit though. The rest are all done in the doctor's clinic.

And yeah, family history also plays into my cardiologist visit.

 

[Janne]

In most countries in Europe, it is 60.
colonoscopy age 50 saves a huge number of US lives!

In Europe they offer a test if you ask ( you bring in three poo samples they test for blood) but this test only shows a well developed cancer. Stage 3 or 4 do not remember.

I am supposed to do one every year to, but do it only every second year.

 

[Janne]

My heart gets checked every 6 months plus I do own BP checks sometimes. The oldfashioned way though
I only use the cuff, I feel on my wrist instead of the stethoscope.

 

[Paul_B]

I'm high risk but they will only do b the poo test after I turn 50. I believe it's a £10 test involving two squares on a card that you smear poo on from opposite ends. Then a plastic sheet goes over to seal it so it can be put into the envelope and posted for testing. Quick and easy.

Since I'm under 40 the most I can get is a genetic test to indicate if I'm high risk. To qualify for this test you have to be considered high risk (three cases in family over at least two generations in at least one side of your family, eg your dad, his brother and their mother). Basically you can get a genetic test to find out if you're high risk but only if you're high risk. What's the use in that? Perhaps you might find out you're at the highest risk rather than just a high risk but minor distinction surely.

I think you can possibly get the impression I'm not impressed with the nhs. It's not the nhs really but the practitioners and systems. For example I asked about high risk about 4 years ago. I got told genetic test was available but only after 50 years of age. The gp had to find that out by calling round the local hospital getting passed from one department / consultant after another. Eventually a gastroenterology consultant gave the wrong information. Under NHS best practice guidelines (NICE) the test should be made readily available for anyone who meets the above high risk category no matter what age they are. I only went to ask my gp after am oncology consultant (senior guy) told my parents to get me and my sister to get the test done. The stomach guy was probably not the right person to give the answer.

Anyway with BP I rarely get tested. Don't know why but I've always had the impression Doctors saw a tall, slim guy and thought healthy / low risk for everything. Turned late 30s and they decided to take a BP reading at the gp, occasionally. Guess I'm getting older

 

[Janne]

Here it is three squares.
The GP does the checking, it is simple. A drop of reagens then a peek in a microscope.
But, if you have blood in the stool - you have a full blown cancer.
Most colon cancers start from a polyp. They remove the polyps routinely during a colonoscopy.