Talk:Blood pressure

Low blood pressure
"The clear trend from double blind clinical trials (for the better strategies and agents) has increasingly been that lower BP is found to result in less disease".
 * This statement is somewhat confusing and only partially true. although beneficial effect of BP lowering is well documented in studies like RENAAL, IDNT, AASK, HOPE and especially in wisconsin study   BP lower than accepted normal protects against renal  disease in type 1 DM,  but broader situation is much complex. Low BP has higher risk of stroke in CKD patients  and higher risk of dementia and depression . Understanding of low blood pressure and effect on disease is still in early stage and not within scope of encyclopedia.--Countincr ( T@lk ) 19:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Footnote linking problem
Footnote 1 is not linking to a PDF document anymore 210.9.143.73 20:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Some causes
BLOOD PRESSURE IS SOMETIMES CAUSED BY PEOPLE WHEN THEY GET ANGRY AND THEIR BLOOD PRESSURE GETS HIGH.ALSO BIG/FAT PEOPLE HAS THIS AND THEY HAVE TO TAKE MEDICINE, BUT SOMETIMES THEY GET SO MAD THEY HAVE A HEART ATTACK OR STROKE SOMETIMES.IT DEPENDS ON THE PERSON.BLOOD PRESSURE IS CALL BY OTHER THINGS BUT MOSTLY THAT.


 * This is not true. Most blood pressure problems are not due to mental state; 95% have no clear underlying cause. The remainder is due to hormonal or kidney problems. It is a common misconception that someone's "blood pressure is up". It is also a common misconception that high blood pressure leads to headaches. This happens only in the most severe cases. JFW | T@lk  15:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Omg...you are a complete idiot. All the nurses I work with, and myself included, are laughing our hind ends off.

If in 95% of the time medical science does not know what causes high blood pressure, how can you say it isn't caused by something. WSNRFN (talk)WSNRFN —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC).

Let's say that I kill 100 idiots. For five of them, I poison them with a common toxic, but for the other 95, I cut their heads off with some unknown, but sharp object. One would be quite accurate in saying that we don't know what killed 95% of the idiots, but it wasn't electrocution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.159.216 (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Systolic/diastolic correlation?
Is there a correlation or ratio betweem systolic and diastolic components of blood pressure?


 * Usually, they follow each other. There are conditions where the two do not keep trend; this is termed "isolated systolic hypertension" or "narrow pulse pressure", resp. JFW | T@lk  00:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is the ideal blood pressure the same for everyone or is it different for youth or kids? I'm seventeen and I got 120/60 which according to the nurse was "Perfect!"(this was during "conscription"). So, is there any diffrence?--84.217.120.7 16:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * BP tends to rise with age (effects of high salt diet in West proposed by my Professor of Haemodynamics vs other cultures where BP tends not to rise as much, also "stiffening" of arteries with age - not just choleaterol being laid down but also changes to the elasticity of the blood vessel walls). Whilst this explains the typical changes with age, none of this is "healthy" as higher blood pressures causes progressively higher risks (so there is no absolute "normal" value) and the longer one lives, the higher the risks become. A healthcare policy based on short-term gains therefore will concentrate on the elderly who have the highest immediate risk, but it is a bit like closing the stable door... - a more sensible approach would be to help people from smoking, being overweight, not taking enough exercise, having too much salt in the diet from an early age - when small changes over time might have better effects (my professor thought the changes in vascular elasticity were probably altered by the western diet by the age of 2 - not very reassuring).
 * Over time as the risks of high BP have been recognised, so the proof of the benefits of treatment to progressively lower targets have been demonstrated. As a junior doctor some 15 years ago, 160 was the target but one might not treat until 170, then this dropped to 150 target and then to 140 if other risk factors present (e.g. diabetes, existing angina). Now UK following US for diabetics in setting 135 limit with 130 as ideal (diabetics are at increased risk heart disease even if their glucose level is well controlled).
 * To answer your question, the lower a persons blood pressure generally the better (assuming not so low a feel faint on standing up). So for a teenager 95-110 would be ideal, over 130 should be rechecked at some quiet relaxed time, and >140 would need monitoring and careful assessment. '120' during conscription (I wont ask for what) therefore seems fine, a reading at a more relaxed time might well be a little lower. David Ruben Talk 17:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

HI,I dont understand my blood pressure reading. I have looked at many charts and it doesnt seem to fit. As of late its been 111/44 wich seems ok, but the last two times its been 114/90 and 119/101..I am only 27,and it said that the systolic should go up.. I really am confused..68.226.14.152 (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sleep and pressure
How does sleep effect your blood pressure? what can happen to you with high blood pressure


 * I believe that recent results show that blood pressure peaks early in the morning, before you rise, which is not what was believed before. Consequently the best time to take medicine for blood pressure is at night. PLEASE confirm and source before adding this information to the article. Pol098 01:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

incomplete ¶
''The larger arteries, including all large enough to see without magnification, are low resistance (assuming no advanced atherosclerotic changes) and conduit vessels with high flow rates but producing very little pressure drop. For instance, about 5 mmHg mean pressure decrease in the blood flow traveling from the heart all the way to the toes is typical, assuming the individual is supine (horizontal with respect to gravity).''

This paragraph is icomplete without some mention of how far the blood pressure falls through the capillaries; the readers deserve context to compare that 5 mmHg figure to. As it is now, scientifically rigorous readers need to scroll all the way down the page to find out that blood returns to the heart at about 5 total mmHg. (I guess that means a drop of ca. 65 mmHg in the capillaries and 5 mmHg in the veins? 5+5+5+65=80?) Doops | talk 04:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

High blood pressure - viscosity, dietary and drug causes
Causes of high blood pressure may be, as I understand it, one or more of flow constriction(s), amount of blood and viscosity. Besides the possiblity of dietary salt increasing amount of blood, are there any dietary or drug factors that are believed to affect esp. viscosity [considering that high vicosity could possibly a cause of TIA by starvation rather than hæmorrhage]. If so, would heavy exercise enhance or mitigate the factors?

L--202.164.205.125 02:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

How does Blood Pressure vary with age?
 * Generally it increases, as the peripheral resistance increases (hardening/narrowing of the arteries etc...) --John24601 22:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Classification of blood pressure
I think we should add a information about classification of blood pressure. We could adopt the data from (for adults, taken from ), but I think a chart such as the upper figure in  is easier to understand (note, however, that this figure referes to an older classification).

What do you think? In particular, which is easier to understand: a table with "or" in it, or a chart? -- Woseph 12:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone put a citation about how obesity, drugs, alcohol, stress, disease, exercise and diet affects blood pressure. You won't find a citation for something that is plainly obvious as that and is common knowledge. pff, you people and your dumb citation tagging, use your head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.45.225 (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There are correlations - as is often said (I don't have a citation on this though..), "correlation does not imply causation". As for obesity - there are at least a few physicians who believe that much if not most obesity is caused by insulin resistance.  This can also lead to hypertension - although I'm not sure whether that is a correlation or whether a there is theory relating insulin resistance to causing hypertension. Dr. Richard K. Bernstein - the secondary source is his book "Diabetes Solution").  I don't think he lists any primaries for this hypothesis.


 * As for exercise and diet - I would want a source on this to know what the mechanism behind this are. Simply saying this is rather like saying rain causes plants to grow - everyone knows it does, but the real question is how.  For diet, I assume the implication here is primarily salt intake - according to the current paradigm at least, however this has been debated - I'm not familiar with the literature to know if it *still* debated, but I know it has been in the past (see "Reducing dietary sodium: the case for caution." JAMA. 2010 Feb 3;303(5):448-9.  and related articles; "The dietary guideline for sodium: should we shake it up? Yes!" Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 May;71(5):1013-9. ; "The dietary guideline for sodium: should we shake it up? No." Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 May;71(5):1020-6. ).  Salt is correlated to higher blood pressure (although even correlation may have been debated based on statistical models used - I don't know).  But I'm not sure if it's known whether salt is a direct cause, or if it is creating a secondary condition which is then raising blood pressure.  I can think this might be some mechanism based on insulin resistance, but again, I'm not familiar with the literature on this, only that such literature debating the current paradigm exists.


 * Drugs and alcohol are perhaps more "obvious" - it is clear that something that affects the body (drugs by definition affect the body, alcohol is known to affect the body) might affect hypertension - although saying "drugs affect blood pressure" is an *awfully* big net. I'd like to see a reference stating what classes of drugs generally affect blood pressure and which direction (up or down, systolic or diastolic or both), give known or assumed mechanisms, etc.  This could be a separate article in itself (ie "Effect of drugs on blood pressure" - there may be some review article to that effect somewhere).  Alcohol - which direction does it affect blood pressure?  Does the effect vary depending on whether the person is already hypertensive (or has insulin resistance, etc)?  Does alcohol change the effect of other drugs on blood pressure?

Not related only to this specifically (but terribly important for medical articles I'd think): why doesn't Wikipedia has something resembling Amazon's "Real Name" (trademark secured by Amazon..) for actually verifying that if someone says they are a research/doctor/nurse/etc, it actually is true? Or is it that Amazon has trademarked "Real Name"? Wikipeida does have user pages, which can contain links to say someone's University web-page which would serve as a verifiable source for credentials - but such credentials are not necessarily verified. And it means that someone has to go to the trouble of creating a user page to provide verification of ones credentials - this should be easier for an otherwise "anonymous user" to do - but credentials must still be verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.142.238 (talk) 05:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The chart is self-contradictory, showing 60-79 diastolic as both Normal and Prehypertension. There is no way to avoid being either hypotention or prehypertension, which is not reassuring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.169.148.245 (talk) 01:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

blood pressur
B.P. IN PARALYSED UPPR LIMB IN PATIENT WITH CVA IS THE SAME AS HEALTHY ONE

if your extremeties "Fall asleep" easily/quickly, is this caused by low blood pressure?


 * Yes, more specfically the primary affected neurons are ischemic (lack of oxygen, due to poor circulation) and lose their ability to transmit their mechano and chemo sensing signals to the brain.

The uncomfortable sensation is the un-coordinated reassembly of those signals as the neurons regain their oxygen debt. Low blood pressure also effects photo-receptors (eyes), so when you stand up quickly as the blood pressure falls in your head, your vision is impaired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.45.225 (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

B.P. in dogs & cats
The systolic pressure values for dogs and cats is listed as "between 150 and 150 mmHg". I don't have the actual values, but this seems to be wrong.

Numbness in the thighs when standing still for several minutes.
This problem occurs while standing still for several minutes and goes away as soon as I recline to a sitting position. Does anyone have a perspective on this condition? I'm am taking several medications for high blood pressure.69.143.195.248 17:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Present in many healthy individuals and usually is not a cause for concern. Can be related to beta blocker. Please remember this is not a page for general discussion. --Countincr ( T@lk ) 18:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's due to the way blood is circulated around the body, veins normally are placed between skeletal muscles in your legs, so as you walk to "pump" veins through valves and against gravity. People with poor circulation will be more prone to this type of problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.45.225 (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

targets are not ranges
Target values are listed. Text refers to ranges. What are desirable ranges? DGerman 13:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarification might help
The ranges for both systolic and diastolic pressures are so varied that there is no true range for diagnostic comparability.


 * Is that the dynamic range of those pressures for an individual, under activity, or are you (I actually think) merely meaning the resting arterial systolic and diastolic pressures.  The thing is, the final paragraph seems to contradict the opening of the section.  And I don't find any mention of how an individual's blood pressure should vary with pulse/activity.  I.e. what an individual's ranges of pressures should be.--SportWagon 18:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Guideline says don't add internal links to See Also?
There are lots of obvious See Also links which are not there, although they are mentioned earlier in the article. Is that because some wikipedia guideline says not to add to See Also articles which have already been linked? If so, I think that's dumb. (I'll explain further if asked). If not, well, I'll go ahead and add a pile more See Also links if no-one else does first.--SportWagon 18:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I added the page to Categories "Blood", and also "Cardiovascular System". That might fulfill the type of "See Also"s I was thinking of, or at least will when yet more articles are added to those categories.  (Aside: Maintenance Categories should be displayed apart from Reference Categories).--SportWagon 16:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposed: Home blood pressure monitoring
The result was to merge Home blood pressure monitoring into Blood pressure. --B. Wolterding 11:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I propose to merge the content of Home blood pressure monitoring into here, since the notability of that article has been questioned. (While merging, that article could also use a bit shortening and cleanup, I think.)

Proposed as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 18:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 66.169.168.111 i agree

Merger executed
I have merged the articles. Some cleanup and shortening may be required; however, since I am not a subject-matter expert, I leave the cleanup to those who are. --B. Wolterding 11:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Blood Pressure Symptoms
I'm a family doctor in the UK and have an interest in blood pressure

I think the article needs a section about high blood pressure symptoms. I've added the start of one with some references


 * There already was a Hypertension article discussing that in detail. If you want to add some of your wording to that, you can retrieve it from the edit history of  this current article (Blood pressure).  Even in the context this article, your section was inappropriately placed.  "Blood Pressure" does not refer only to "High Blood Pressure".  But as far as I can see, Hypertension covered all your points in even greater detail.--SportWagon 19:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I've no problem with that GordonMarjory 20:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Blood Pressure Treatment: remarkable silence of this article
This article fails a potential valuable public health function by providing the interested reader with no pointers to even the rudiments like the value of knowing one's blood pressure or the need to seek immediate medical consult if blood pressure is over 240/180, to say nothing of the value of weight loss, salt restriction, diuretics, ACE inhibitors, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdcntx (talk • contribs) 20:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps see Hypertension and Hypotension, etc, which are referenced in the text. And there's a whole section on Home monitoring which, IMHO, should have been left as a separate article referenced from here.  Besides, wikipedia is not a public health service.  Nonetheless, a reader could infer your suggestions after a complete reading of the text here.--SportWagon 14:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I see you, apparently in response to this, created lots of hypertension links. While that is an action I personally would agree with, beware that there are some who would say redundant links are wrong according to policy.  Sigh.--SportWagon 20:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

White-coat Hypertension
There is disagreement among hypertension experts as to whether white-coat hypertension should be considered a true hypertension or not. Many experts, but by no means all, think that white-coat HTN is a variation or a forme-fruste of HTN, caused in part by excessive catecholamine outflows. The section seems to give the impression that there is no disagreement.--Bwthemoose/Talk 19:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Measurement & pulse rate
describ in datail how the blood pressure is measured in human,if the blood pressure is 120/80mmHg,what will be the pulse rate?78.138.5.82 (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * About a third of the article discusses Blood_pressure. There is no ability to make any inferences on the pulse rate from just the blood pressure measurement itself. Of course pulse rate and cardiac ejection stroke volume together define the volume of blood pumped (cardiac output) and this in turn has effect on the blood pressure, but only indirectly. General the level of blood volume & vascular constriction will help set the underlying diastolic blood pressure, but so do things such as passage of fluid out of the blood vessels into the tissues and the return of that fluid via the lymph system. So whilst a person stressed with an increasing heart rate probably will have a higher blood pressure for a while, subsequent opening of the vasculature (ie flushing) may result in overall lower blood pressure and an eventual faint. Likewise someone with a major injury bleeding heavily, may have a very high pulse rate in a desperate attempt to maintain the blood pressure (which itself might not seem unduely lowered) - hence in an ER a patient with BP 120/70 Pulse 64 is probably stable, BP 160/105 P110 is probably a patient in pain or distress, but if BP 110/65 Pulse 110 then possibly haemodynamically compromised and about to go into shock (medical).
 * Of course whilst taking the blood pressure measurement, the pulse will be detected (for it creates the intial sound or pressure fluctuations that are recorded as the systolic pressure). Hence automated machines will record the pulse rate at the same time. Manual measurement will given at least a general impression of the pulse rate even if it is not then formally measured.David Ruben Talk 14:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The introduction states that measurement is universally in mm Hg. Not so in Brasil where kPa is the norm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.16.174 (talk • contribs)

The section "MEASUREMENT", third paragraph ends with "[citation needed]". Why is a citation needed? The sentence it is attached to appears to me to be a simple statement, much like many other sentences in this article that do not end with a citation. The subject sentence, "Along with body temperature, respiratory rate, and pulse rate, BP measurements are the most commonly measured physiological parameters" appears to me to be an unimpeachable statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mach37 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed the sentence slightly to one with a similar meaning that was sourced. Thanks for your comment. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Lowest Possible Blood Pressure
What is the lowest possible blood pressure one can have without sustaining injuries? Short term and long term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.131.68 (talk • contribs)


 * Due to individual differences in metabolism and physiology of humans, there will never be an answer to that question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.45.225 (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Normal values
I think the first two paragraphs of the "Normal values" section in the article are a misinterpretation of the term "normal" with regards to a person's physiological state. My understanding of normal in a medical context is that it refers to the state of a normal healthy functioning body or part of a body. This is not necessarily the same as the average value for a given population. For example, the average weight of the U.S. population is abnormally high.

In the second paragraph it is appropriate to speak of the normal values of children being different than for adults. However, it does not seem appropriate to speak of the normal values of adults changing as they age. The average values of adults will change with age but the values for a normal healthy functioning body remain the same. The increase in blood pressure with age from stiffening of arteries, for example, is pathological not normal, in the context of this discussion. One can speak of normal changes due to aging, but normal in this sense means expected, rather than nonpathological.

I would be interested in other editors' comments on this. Is it clear, right, wrong, whatever. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Normal As You Age
The values I'm finding are all over the ball park and the old rule mentioned that your pressure should be for a male 100 plus your age (and miunus 10for a female) is debated ; so that normal people csan not be sure what is OK level, esp with doctor encouragement to take pills if over 130/80. And so for older persons, as say a 55 year old person ,lthat older rule used for decades would mean  155 is ok, but many want to put you on a pill.... So the article does not address this,. and perhaps can not. /s/ harold von salk 69.121.221.97 (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Palpation
I think this phrase may be misleading: The diastolic blood pressure can not be estimated by this method.

I think the reference is referring to the use of palpation in combination with a sphygmanometer, but it could be read as applying to all uses of palpation.

The most likely use of palpation is in regard to shock and, in that case, if the systolic pressure is barely enough to detect, the diastolic one obviously isn't, however, as original research, so you can't use it in the article, my impression is that one can estimate both diastolic and systolic, for normal to high ranges, by the onset and termination of the pulse as one increases pressure on the artery.

-- David Woolley (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources with multiple authors
Part I - copied from Template talk:Citation/core #Sources with multiple authors

I've been having a problem in the Blood pressure article with the links from the footnotes for Pickering 2005 to the References section. I've tried to debug it in various ways without success, except to find that the problem is related to the presence of one or more coauthors in the Pickering 2005 article. Have you tested the changes to see how they work for sources with multiple authors with respect to the link from the harv footnote to the source in a Reference section, like in the case of the Blood pressure article? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In the, instead of
 * use this:
 * use this:


 * and instead of
 * use this:
 * Since there are more than 3 names, the "et al" thing will happen automatically. You could also try putting in further firstn/lastn pairs up to a total of 9 (and renumber the one which I've shown as author9, which is unfortunate because this paper has 10 authors. The field coauthors doesn't work when last2 is specified. However, don't feed more than four lastnames into . --Redrose64 (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Since there are more than 3 names, the "et al" thing will happen automatically. You could also try putting in further firstn/lastn pairs up to a total of 9 (and renumber the one which I've shown as author9, which is unfortunate because this paper has 10 authors. The field coauthors doesn't work when last2 is specified. However, don't feed more than four lastnames into . --Redrose64 (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Since there are more than 3 names, the "et al" thing will happen automatically. You could also try putting in further firstn/lastn pairs up to a total of 9 (and renumber the one which I've shown as author9, which is unfortunate because this paper has 10 authors. The field coauthors doesn't work when last2 is specified. However, don't feed more than four lastnames into . --Redrose64 (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice work! I incorporated your suggestion into the article. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Part II - copied from User talk:Bob K31416 #Blood Pressure

Nice to see that my suggestions worked... there's one small matter of style, that is entirely up to you. It does not affect the mechanism for the citation linking.

As I read it, the journal article in question has ten authors; however, the cite journal template allows for no more than nine authors (whether specified as authorn, as pairs of firstn/lastn or a mixture. I suggested four, being the minimum required for harv to behave properly and still show "et al" in the Footnotes section; but it might be better to show as many as possible under "References" (give credit where credit is due) - unfortunately there is no official method to show more than eight distinct authors, but I think that we can fiddle the system to get the last two into the page source (even though they won't actually display), by cramming them into author9, as below.

Basically, I have found that if you provide nine authors to cite journal it will automatically do an "et al" after a certain point; by default, this is after the eighth author, but other positions may be set (see later). So, instead of this:

try this:

which will give something like this (I shortened the title here, and removed the URL, DOI etc. purely for demonstration purposes):

You might feel that fewer than eight distinct authors would be better. I'm not sure just how many authors are best to show; and I don't really know where to look for guidance; but let's say that you felt that six was best. You would do it using display-authors like this:

will give something like this:

Really though, it's entirely up to you whether you want to specify further authors in cite journal - but as I mentioned before, leave harv alone, because that won't handle more than four. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I had thought that Wikipedia style had 3 authors and then et al, but I was unable to find that recommendation anywhere when I looked for it after reading your message.  I just now posed the question at the Help Desk. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To which I have added a supplementary, which covers my earlier observation about the nine-author restriction. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good addition to the good discussion there. After reading yours and other discussion, my current feeling is: 1. all authors should be displayed in the references or footnotes sections except in additional mentioning of a reference, e.g. when something like harv is used. 2. the undocumented "display-authors=" should be documented. 3. the number of authors in cite journal and similar templates should be increased beyond 9, as one of the respondents at the Help Desk suggested. If that's not feasible, your workaround for increasing the number should be documented, and lastly 4. guidance for the use of "et al" should be given in the guidelines. I'll wait a little while to see what else comes up in the discussion before mentioning these points at the Help Desk discussion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I found where I got the idea that et al. should be used after 3 authors, sort of. (I was editing a medical article at the time.):


 * But the sentence that came after it said something different:
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I modified the article to follow the AMA guideline for Pickering 2005. Also modified 6 harv inline citations that were affected by the Pickering 2005 modification. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Have just looked at that edit. I guess it works; but to meet the same guideline, you could have left all the harv alone, and also left cite journal as it was with the exception of simply adding 3 to it. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. I recognized that but I felt that it might give an editor the false impression that there were only 4 authors.
 * BTW, I was curious how you came across or discovered the very useful "display-authors=".


 * Just for fun, I looked to see if there was a Wikipedia article on "et al." and I was redirected to et al. Here's an excerpt from it.
 * Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look at cite journal, display-authors is not shown in the five different sets of blank parameters; but later on, under Legend:
 * {|class=wikitable
 * {|class=wikitable


 * author: Author. Use to specify a single author of the paper, or alternately, to specify all the authors of the paper in whatever format desired. If you use author to specify all the authors, do not specify the following author-related parameters.
 * last works with first to produce .  These parameters produce the maximum metadata and should be used if possible.
 * author2, last2, first2 and subsequent should be used for co-authors (up to 9 will be displayed before truncation with "et al".
 * authorlink works either with author or with last & first to link to the appropriate article (InterWikimedia links)
 * coauthors: Full name of additional author or authors. Please use 'author2', 'author3', etc instead.
 * author-separator: over-ride the default semi-colon that separates authors' names.
 * author-name-separator: over-ride the default comma that separates authors' names.
 * display-authors: Truncate the list of authors at an arbitrary point with "et al". Still include the first 9 authors to allow metadata to be generated.
 * }
 * The main thing that makes me want to fit in as many authors as poss (even if only three are actually displayed) is this business about "metadata". It's principally to do with COinS, see also WikiProject Microformats/COinS. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's a very good point re COinS. I haven't looked into COinS before but it looks like all the authors should be put in the metadata for this reason that  you mentioned. It seems that your workaround for adding more authors than 9 would work with COinS too. I plan to make that change in Pickering 2005 if it works with harv. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I just made the change. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, since the COinS metadata is generated by the cite journal, and not by harv, you only need four authors in harv and it will et al. automatically. I would suggest "Falkner" for the fourth, rather than that long string that you have used. For cite journal, fit in as many as possible. Having reviewed the mechanism by which it works, I'd say that the following may give the best result:
 * --Redrose64 (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's true, but I was trying to make the situation clearer for other editors who would encounter the harvs on the edit page and may not know that there are other authors. Perhaps I should use what you suggested and clarify for editors using hidden comments. How does that sound?--Bob K31416 (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hidden comment, yes; this could contain a list of the fifth and subsequent authors - or an instruction such as "fifth and subsequent authors omitted, see documentation for Template:Harv" --Redrose64 (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again and for all your help. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * --Redrose64 (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's true, but I was trying to make the situation clearer for other editors who would encounter the harvs on the edit page and may not know that there are other authors. Perhaps I should use what you suggested and clarify for editors using hidden comments. How does that sound?--Bob K31416 (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hidden comment, yes; this could contain a list of the fifth and subsequent authors - or an instruction such as "fifth and subsequent authors omitted, see documentation for Template:Harv" --Redrose64 (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again and for all your help. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The above Parts I and II were copied from elsewhere, as indicated. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

blood pressure
Is it normal for your blood pressure to go to 160/89 in the AM (this is while drinking coffee and doing you AM tasks)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.67.64.21 (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NOTAMANUAL and WP:NOTAFORUM - Wiki is not a place to get medical advice, nor are article talk pages the place to discuss the subject of the article, other than regarding ways to improve the article. Since you have a medical concern, you should see your physician (if you have one) or go to a health clinic. I wish you all the best, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)John.

Large unreferenced section
The large sections of unreferenced text concerns me. Will nominate for GAR. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

BP = COxPR
I havent found any mention of this in the article, though I may have missed it, and I believe it is a rather important piece of info:-

Blood Pressure = Cardiac Output X Peripherial Resistance

It is important as it is used to calculate blood pressure and in the choice of treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.126.21 (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added a small paragraph mentioning the above. Thank you! --Enigma (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Units
Why is blood pressure not measured in pascals, a proper SI unit? Medicine is, after all, a science. 78.86.61.94 (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's my take (based on some medical experience and lots of casual conversations using scientific values). Blood pressure has been measured for a loooong time, well before all of science tried to organize around a unified and consistent system of measurements. Many medical values got stuck as "how they have always been done". This particular one is often done using a mercury manometer (though that is changing in some settings), so you don't need to calibrate it with any sort of standard or convert, just measure the height. The standard values people recognize are nice round ones in mmHg (multiples of 10) with good resolution as integer values. Many fields of medicine use non-SI units because it would be dangerous to have a technician get confused because the values are often reported with no units--imagine a first responder calling out a bp of 70 kPa..."70" is a pretty good diastolic (because it is...if one promptly recognizes mmHg values), so might not consider hypotension as a likely situation (the bp is actually only around 50 mmHg!). DMacks (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

In some countries (eg Brasil), the units are confusingly quoted as centimetres of mercury rather than millimetres. Just divide/multiply by ten to get the conversion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.74.164 (talk) 11:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

24-hour BP monitoring
There should be a mention of ambulatory BP-monitoring units, commonly called "holders", which provide a statistically more reliable record of a person's current BP.-The Gnome (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

blood pressures taken daily
I would like to know about how many blood pressures are taken daily in the unites states, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.78.134 (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

How to improve general presentation and layout
Rather than have a sentence at the top of the article saying "See hypertension for information on high blood pressure", I feel it would improve article to have a "See also" section at the end, where high blood pressure or hypertension could be listed. This would certainly be consistent with lots of other Wikipedia articles. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

As a lay reader I'd just like to congratulate the authors of this article. For all I know, it may be nonsense, but if so, it is well written and well presented nonsense. Also there is no mention of salt, so it was probably not written by complete idiots. Cheers, Jonathan Bagley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.123.137 (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move to systemic arterial blood pressure

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. This discussion has generated many promising ideas, but also a strong consensus that this subject should be described at its common name, "blood pressure". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Blood pressure → Systemic arterial blood pressure – The content in this article is almost entirely about arterial pressure in the systemic circulation, and I think the title should reflect the content. The layout is very badly adapted to the existence of blood pressure at other sites, such as venous pressure including central venous pressure, jugular venous pressure and portal venous pressure. The only location for such subjects in the article is currently in Blood pressure, which, however, merely is a subsection of Blood pressure, and, even so, the bulk of its content is still about systemic arterial pressure in the form of "Blood pressure drop across major arteries to capillaries". Adaption of this article to properly describe other blood pressures than the systemic arterial one would necessitate a complete rewrite of the article, but moving it to the title Systemic arterial blood pressure would allow it to retain its current layout. Also, even if removing the other types of blood pressures to a new Blood pressure article with wider scope, the Systemic arterial blood pressure article would still be over 50 kilobytes long, and the new Blood pressure article will certainly be more than long enough just with the introductions to, for example, central venous pressure, jugular venous pressure and portal venous pressure. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support move per nom, leaving a disambiguation page at this current name if there is not yet a new real article ready here. That gives a chance to sort out inbound links and redirects, some/many of which might not be about the specific (now accurately named) new page. Is there enough material about measurement techniques to spawn that into Blood pressure measurement or something? DMacks (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, or, alternatively, different definitions may be explained by a hatnote in the new Blood pressure article. I'm not sure if there's enough to make a separate Blood pressure measurement article, but it's definitely worth an own section. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment isn't this article solely dealing with human blood pressure, with some applicability to mammals in general, and not blood pressure in all creatures with blood? 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems like another subject that we'll have the ability to describe if we can broaden the scope of "Blood pressure" with this move. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But mammals have arterial blood pressure... so shouldn't this article have "human" as part of its name? 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's possible to move it to Human systemic arterial blood pressure. However, I don't think it's necessary yet, as there is hardly any specific non-human text in the article, and the article can have one section for humans and one section for non-humans if necessary. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:Commonname. AFAIK the most common name for the subject is 'blood pressure' and IMHO the proppossed name is simply too technical. If needed improve the little text with a link to 'blood pressure (disambiguation)' instead. Flamarande (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment but that's WP:Systematic bias towards humans. "Blood pressure" should be a general article about all types of blood pressure. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the one systemic bias we don't try to counter. =)  Powers T 19:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree that "Blood pressure" usually refers to "(Human) systemic arterial blood pressure", so I'm happy for all the readers that come to the right place by typing "Blood pressure". Still, I'd favor a move, because of the trouble for the ones that are looking for other types. A common "Blood pressure" article to get an overview of all types could explain that "Systemic arterial blood pressure" is the measurement most often referred to, so those who are looking for that would still only be one click away from their target. Besides, a "Blood pressure" article with a broader scope of the sense would be better than a mere disambiguation page, because many of the physiological mechanisms and measurement techniques are common for several blood pressure types. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Editors tend to be very reluctant to approve a move that would leave an apparent gap in our coverage, as is the case here. You would be better off writing an article (at another location, perhaps in userspace) that would become the new Blood pressure article, then proposing a multimove.  Powers T 19:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll hopefully have a draft ready tomorrow. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Replacement of current blood pressure article
It is hereby suggested that:
 * The current Blood pressure article is moved to Systemic arterial blood pressure
 * User:Mikael Häggström/Blood pressure is subsequently moved to Blood pressure


 * Comment: I've made a suggested start of the Blood pressure article as it should look to broaden the scope, at User:Mikael Häggström/Blood pressure. Much is duplicate information taken from current blood pressure article, but the physiology section is largely new material, which cannot conveniently be added anywhere in Wikipedia in the current state. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should try really hard to keep a "Blood pressure" article that deals with what most people refer to as blood pressure. So in my mind, a comprehensive covering of Systemic arterial blood pressure as the majority of the article, with the addition of smaller, much summarised sections as necessary (not sure on the specifics as this isn't my area). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Or, alternatively, putting systemic arterial blood pressure at the top of the new article as in the latest update of the suggested alternative. On the other hand, keeping the current text in the Blood pressure article would necessitate, amongst many other modifications, a more clear demarcation that its subject is Systemic arterial blood pressure, probably by adding a top-level header named something like "Systemic arterial blood pressure" near its beginning, including all the content down to Blood pressure, which probably needs to be a separate top-level header as well. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Separate top-level sections for "Systemic arterial blood pressure" and "blood pressure at other sites"
On second thought, I agree with Flamarande and Grandiose in not moving. The alternative layout suggested just above would keep this article at its wp:Common name while availing for general aspects at the end of the article in a separate section. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Own section for systemic arterial blood pressure
Instead of the previously suggested move above, I think the content regarding systemic arterial blood pressure in this article should have an own top-level header, thereby distinguishing from blood pressure at other sites. As systemic arterial blood pressure is the main type referred to, it may still be emphasized in the lead section, but with a statement implying that it's not the only one, such as "When used without further specification, "blood pressure" usually refers to systemic arterial blood pressure". Thus, the layout would be: The latter three sections are new or moved from information currently in the subsection of "Measurement", and are outlined in User:Mikael_Häggström/Blood_pressure. Those pieces of information are very hard to add in the current layout of the article. Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (Almost same) lead section
 * Systemic arterial blood pressure (with the following sections simply becoming ===Headers=== instead of ==Headers== )
 * Classification
 * Pathophysiology
 * Measurement
 * Diseases
 * Fetal blood pressure
 * Blood pressure at other sites
 * General physiology

Astolic or diastolic?
In a recent revision every word diastolic in this article was changed to astolic. I'm more familiar with using diastolic so I suggest reverting this revision. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've heard astolic used only rarely; the cited refs appear to use diastolic. Unless there is a WP:RS that specifically supports astolic as the "correct" one, article should use the one most commonly used in sources. DMacks (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted the revision, so that diastolic is given in the article again. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Above 180mmHg - crisis or dilemma?
The table states that BP over 180/120 mmHg is hypertensive crisis. I'd suggest the value should be 180/110, and instead of crisis, maybe labelled "Severe" or Stage 3. http://www.aafp.org/afp/2010/0215/p470.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.77.11 (talk) 06:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

From where is known the influence of blood pressure
I would like to know how is long time it's known that the blood pressure influence about our life? and in addition, when is the begining of use the blood pressure check. thanks for help. 46.210.98.216 (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. I am sure someone can help you at the Reference desk/Science.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 02:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The main article would be improved with a history behind the taking of blood pressure, and how other primates are known to have similar blood pressures.  This should be placed at the beginning of the article.   216.99.198.210 (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * some material dealing with this is in History of hypertension Adh (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Other than Mercury
The main article implies that blood pressure is usually measured in terms of millimeters of Mercury. That begs the question. What other liquids are available for comparison?

The only other one I've seen used is cmH2O, but very rarely these days. Hg is used since it's pretty much the densest liquid that's reasonably abundant, but you could make a manometer with any fluid you want. 99.172.17.253 (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Underwater blood pressures?
Does spending long periods of time in a submarine result in different readings for the blood pressure of the occupants? For instance, 48 hours at 200 feet below the surface. How long does it take the human body to respond (and adjust) to the pressure differences?

Are there any research studies for this sort of thing? Any links to the research studies would help me understand the main article. 216.99.198.210 (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Physiology picture Blood Pressure Blood Flow
The picture showing high blood pressure in a narrow artery illustrates incorrect physics. The faster fluid flow though a narrow artery would result in a lower pressure "in the artery", not a higher one as depicted. Relabeling to show a different pressure at the entrance, nor the exit, to the artery would correct the error.

Physiology picture Blood Pressure Blood Flow
The picture showing high blood pressure in a narrow artery illustrates incorrect physics. The faster fluid flow though a narrow artery would result in a lower pressure "in the artery", not a higher one as depicted. Relabeling to show a different pressure at the entrance, nor the exit, to the artery would correct the error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.95.118 (talk) 03:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Article reorganization
A decent reorganization effort was made a few years ago at Talk:Blood_pressure. While it was a step in the right direction, it leaves out some key areas including regulation of blood pressure. I want to reorganize the article using MOS:MED#Symptoms_or_signs roughly as a guideline. The sections would be something like this:


 * Lead (which also needs to be rewritten to be more concise and serve as a topic overview)


 * Classification
 * Systemic arterial (definition and normal ranges)
 * Systemic venous (CVP, JVP, portal)
 * Pulmonary


 * Disorders


 * Physiology (this would pull together a lot of the detailed descriptions that are currently scattered throughout)


 * Measurement
 * Noninvasive
 * Invasive


 * Management (pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic)

I would definitely welcome any comments or suggestions. 02:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Done. In reorganizing the sections it is clear that many sections (such as blood pressure measurement) are large enough to be split off into their own articles. There is also an article out there on Low blood pressure cascade which shouldn't be its own article. Will start tagging sections that need work. Gccwang (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Split of measurement section
proposes to split the section on measurement into its own new article. I support this idea because this section is long and this amount of detail is unnecessary for this article when a summary of the concept would meet the need here. Thoughts from others?  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  20:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Needless to say, I am in favor. Gccwang (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I think it makes sense to split this section out and retain only a summary Adh (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen any objections here but the proposal is pretty old. So I'm raising this issue again, with a view to creating a new section sometime over the summer unless there is an objection. Adh (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I agree that this section would be best split into a new article, with a summary retained. benrusholme (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge
I would like to merge the page Low blood pressure cascade into this page, since its content is somewhat redundant. Citations would need to be added (the other article has no citations at all), and then it would probably incorporate into the Blood_pressure section. Gccwang (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Blood pressure management
Two things about this section. First, "Treatment of underlying conditions" is uncited. I didn't flag, but someone should fix it as it's pretty central in a medical sense. Second, "Other substances that affect blood pressure" is entirely uncited, seems like a stub, and lists "Drugs of abuse". "Drugs of abuse" is, well, tons of things. I presume my blood pressure would be effected differently while on Ketamine as opposed to Cocaine, as opposed to Codeine, as opposed to Khat, as opposed to... you get the idea. 2601:C:AB80:3D1:BE5F:F4FF:FE35:1B41 (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Could experts contribute on the question of the size and design of the cuff and air bladder?
Could some experts be found to contribute on the question of the size and construction of the cuff and air bladder? Surely there are standards, going back to the mercury sphygmomanometer used by Korotkoff?

In my informal experimentation, I have found a definite connection between cuff size, cuff stiffness, and the size of the air bladder, inside the cuff. Smaller cuffs and bladders on larger diameter arms give inaccurate results. That is, inaccurate measurements that are far too high.

Worse, I have encountered a trend toward over-estimation of blood pressure as a cuff wears out from use and becomes less stiff. The softer backing on the air bladder requires a higher air pressure to cut off circulation. Results are readings that are inaccurately high.

Online recommendations by some sites, such as the Mayo Clinic and Baum (WABaum.com), recommend that the air bladder wrap a minimum 80% around the arm. But nothing is mentioned about the maximum amount of wrap. Little can be found concerning recommended width of the bladder and cuff, in the dimension along the arm.

Can any research be found, and referenced? Surely this work has been done. As some have already posted, it is really difficult to get clear and consistent recommendations on exactly what ones blood pressure should be, based on age and other health issues. I suspect that the confusion is made much worse by inaccurate measurement of blood pressure.

Can any experts comment? Or point us in the direction of research papers? Even if the research is locked behind a "pay wall"? 68.35.173.107 (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have added some additional information on this, including a citation to European Society of Hypertension recommendations that cover this issue in some detail. The British Hypertension Society also has a useful site that deals with this and other questions related to hypertension (http://www.bhsoc.org/frequently-asked-questions/). Adh (talk)

Section: Home monitoring
I added a dubious tag with explanation here. Also there is no citation for the entire paragraph.--TMCk (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Necessity of choosing appropriate cuff size
maybe it would be good to stress this when mentioning the different cuff sizes. My girlfriend took 15 years Bisoprolol 5 mg because all doctors and the local hospital took standard cuffs while she has 38 cm mid-ac. She is not fat, that was probably the reason but she has lipohypertrophy just on the upper arms. She always had normal blood pressure all the while, i.e. with the bisoprolol she had 100/60 instead of 120/60! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malv0isin (talk • contribs) 14:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added some additional information on this, including a citation to European Society of Hypertension recommendations that cover this issue in some detail. Adh (talk)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Blood pressure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.clevelandclinicmeded.com/medicalpubs/diseasemanagement/nephrology/isosystolic/isosystolic.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150427160330/http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4650 to http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4650
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140525195425/http://www.nature.com/ajh/journal/v20/n5/abs/ajh200783a.html to http://www.nature.com/ajh/journal/v20/n5/abs/ajh200783a.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Measurement - Noninvasive - Auscultatory
Describing the process of measurement with a sphygmomanometer, the paragraph ends with, "The cuff pressure is further released until no sound can be heard (fifth Korotkoff sound), at the diastolic arterial pressure." As in this statement, it is common practice to simply assert that the point of no sound is the diastolic arterial pressure, without explanation. However, there is really no obvious rational or physical reason to associate the two. Indeed, that statement appears on simple reasoning to be false! What is obvious is that the only sound that can be heard in the stethoscope is the flow disturbance caused by the peak pressure and peak flow at the site of measurement (the cuff). The diastolic point of the heart cycle would always be a resting or quiet point. Hence, to repeat for emphasis, as the pressure in the cuff is reduced the systolic point pressure is what creates the sound heard in through the stethoscope. So when the sound ceases to be heard it because the systolic peak, not the diastolic null, is no longer heard. The systolic peak is not heard because the occlusion of the artery is too insignificant to create an audible blood flow disturbance. The point at which the systolic pressure cannot create sound in the artery could not be the diastolic pressure because the diastolic pressure is by definition less than the systolic pressure. Hence the logical conclusion that the original statement is false. The point of this comment of mine is to propose that If there is any relation between the point of "no sound can be heard" and the diastolic pressure, it should be explained in this article. I note that there is also no explanation in the Wikipedia article on the sphygmomanometer.

Wiki-producer (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, I follow your argument and intuitively its plausible, but I'm afraid its not correct. The detailed physics of Korotkoff sounds are still somewhat disputed, [1-3] but I think the evidence is pretty convincing that they are associated with the time of peak change in pressure (dp/dt) and peak rate of steepening (dp/dt2), not the time of peak flow or peak pressure (systole).[2, 3] The time of Korotkoff sounds corresponds to the time when flow downstream of the cuff just begins to accelerate. As the pressure in the cuff declines from values above systolic pressure the rate of change of pressure increases to a peak (around mean arterial pressure) and then declines; the sounds follow a similar pattern.[2, 3] A residual sound persists even after cuff pressure falls below the diastolic level, [3] but this is generally inaudible in practice. This is probably too much detail for the article but I will add something when I get time.


 * 1. Venet R, Miric D, Pavie A, Lacheheb D. Korotkoff sound: the cavitation hypothesis. Med Hypotheses 2000; 55(2): 141-6.


 * 2. Tavel ME, Faris J, Nasser WK, Feigebaum H, Fisch C. Korotkoff sounds. Observations on pressure-pulse changes underlying their formation. Circulation 1969; 39(4): 465-74.


 * 3. Drzewiecki GM, Melbin J, Noordergraaf A. The Krotkoff sound. Ann Biomed Eng 1989; 17(4): 325-59.


 * Adh (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

115/75?
The entry says, "The risk of cardiovascular disease increases progressively above 115/75 mm Hg." As supporting evidence, it cites:

Appel LJ, Brands MW, Daniels SR, Karanja N, Elmer PJ, Sacks FM (February 2006). "Dietary approaches to prevent and treat hypertension: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association". Hypertension 47 (2): 296–308. http://hyper.ahajournals.org/content/47/2/296 doi:10.1161/01.HYP.0000202568.01167.B6. .

2 problems with that.

1 That scientific statement is from 2006. That's older than the references we prefer in WP:MEDRS.

2 The scientific statement says in the abstract, "The risk of cardiovascular disease increases progressively throughout the range of BP, beginning at 115/75 mm Hg." But I can't find a source to support that anywhere in the scientific statement.

Does anybody have a good, WP:MEDRS source to support the statement that the risk of cardiovascular disease increases starting at 115/75, even for people who are not obese, diabetic or already with a cardiovascular disease? --Nbauman (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree it is to old User:Nbauman. Feel free to remove / update. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT)
Nothing about the SPRINT trial? https://www.sprinttrial.org/public/dspHome.cfm --Nbauman (talk) 04:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * NIH SPRINT study sparks questions about overtreatment of mild hypertension http://www.healthnewsreview.org/2015/09/nih-sprint-study-sparks-questions-about-overtreatment-of-mild-hypertension/ Interviews critics of SPRINT study, particularly for releasing results in press release and not releasing the data. --Nbauman (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes we are waiting for it to be combined into high quality secondary sources. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

NIH paper
I meant to mention this here some time ago http://www.nih.gov/news/health/sep2015/nhlbi-11.htm - not sure if it's useful, but here it is if so.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC).

Choice of images
The use of a "black box" type of blood pressure monitor is accurate for these days, but quite uninformative of how the measurement actually works, and particularly why the units are "mm(Hg)". If an appropriate image is available, an old style mercury sphygomanometer (spelling?) would be an appropriate addition. IMHO. Aidan Karley (talk) 09:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Blood pressure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cvphysiology.com/Blood%20Pressure/BP006.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cvphysiology.com/Blood%20Pressure/BP003.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140702221540/http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov:80/hbp/detect/tips.htm to http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/hbp/detect/tips.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Blood pressure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cvphysiology.com/Blood%20Pressure/BP006.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cvphysiology.com/Blood%20Pressure/BP003.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080821165806/http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/anesthesiology-elective/cardiac/cvcphys.cfm to http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/anesthesiology-elective/cardiac/cvcphys.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Classification of blood pressure table needs work
The table lists 60-79 diastolic as both normal and prehypertensive. Aesthetically the rows under systolic for stage 1 and stage 2 should be switched to make them consistent with normal and prehypertensive. I would say the same is true for diastolic, but there seems another irreconcilable number conflict there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.169.148.245 (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Blood pressure in other animals
The section sub-titled "Blood pressure in other animals" just talks about blood pressure in cats. Could it talk about blood pressure in animals other than cats? Vorbee (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Feel free to add content. Wikipedia is always a work in progress. Bondegezou (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Control increase in blood pressure.
Blood pressure means the pressure on the walls of the blood vessels due to increased flow of blood through it.Which means it's mainly due to increased blood levels in the body.There are some others reasons as well but increasing blood levels are a reason for the constance in the disease.Why can't there be medicines which can help decrease blood levels like use of some of the Vitamin B complex other than folic acid and those which increase blood?They can help reduce blood levels .What do you think can be a better way of reducing blood levels? Discuss... Wizziwizard (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Most of the pressure in the circulation is due to the work done by the heart in pumping the blood through the circulation (I've revised the introduction to make this clear). This is why the blood pressure falls when the heart stops. There is a small residual pressure (seen when the heart stops for a long period) - this is due to the volume of blood and the compliance of the circulation - this is termed the mean circulatory filling pressure (MCFP). Typically this is approximately 10mmHg or less, i.e. <10% of the normal mean arterial pressure. Adh (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Math formatting and layout
In the Mean arterial pressure section, there is something not right about how the math formulas are displayed when using the Wikipedia App. Senator2029 “Talk”   20:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Discovery of Blood pressure
I came to this page hoping to learn a little bit about how blood pressure was discovered (i.e: who thought of it in the first place) and how it came to be measured.

While this article includes a great deal about the technical attributes of BP, it lacks a historical perspective. I have no background in this field, but a general web search lead me to Stephen Hales, the history of hypertension and the development of the Sphygometer. I don't feel confident enough in my information to add to the article, but wanted to suggest/ request that a reference to these ideas (hypertension and the Sphygometer have references within the text, but not in a historical/ origination context) be included. 170.140.105.41 (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * There is an article History of hypertension. TomS TDotO (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

what are risks of blood pressure and the treatment for it
pls help I can't find the correct answers any where 41.115.61.4 (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * You need to speak to your doctor, not random people on the internet. - Roxy the dog 15:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

history of limits of good or excessive pressure
The article reports, what the prevailing doctrine - or ideology!? -currently indicates as limits of «normal» blood pressure versus «hypertension» - grade 1, grade 2, grade 3. These limits haven't always been the same in history and they don't respect any individual elements, particularly of age, contrary to older doctrines. These «limits of tolerance» have been lowered constantly under the benevolent eyes of the pharmaceutical, or generally medical industry. «Honny soit qui mal y pense!» For a long time there has been an accepted limit for the systolic pressure of age plus 100 or age plus 90. It would be very welcome, if someone could report the history of these limits. Werfur (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)