Medical BP measurement : is it ok to re-inflate gently around threshold?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Swamp Thing
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Measurement
AI Thread Summary
Gently squeezing the bulb after crossing the systolic or diastolic threshold can lead to inaccurate blood pressure readings, especially with automatic cuffs that may overinflate. Manual measurements should focus on listening for Korotkoff sounds to determine accurate values, ideally inflating only slightly above the systolic pressure before releasing. Consistency in measuring conditions—such as sitting quietly and using the same arm—is crucial for reliable home readings. It's recommended to take blood pressure readings twice daily over several days for better diagnosis or monitoring. Home measurements often yield more accurate results than those taken in a clinical setting due to the stress factors present during doctor visits.
Swamp Thing
Insights Author
Messages
1,028
Reaction score
768
Is it ok to gently squeeze the bulb just after crossing the systolic or diastolic threshold, just to make sure of the exact value?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
There are tradeoffs. For some people (me included), the cuff can be a bit uncomfortable, and if it is overinflated or inflated for too long, it raises the blood pressure and interferes with an accurate reading.

When I take manual BPs, I slowly inflate the cuff and listen for the Korotkoff sounds to start and end (on the way up as I increase the cuff pressure). That gives me a pretty good idea of what the BP reading will be, so I only need to go about 5-10mmHg above Systolic before I start releasing pressure. I get the official Systolic and Diastolic numbers on the way down (which is the standard direction to get those numbers).

BTW, you can get automatic BP cuffs that take the pressures on the way up, and are much more gentle than the standard ones that often overinflate by 20mmHg or more. Much more comfortable! :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes DeBangis21 and Swamp Thing
Swamp Thing said:
Is it ok to gently squeeze the bulb just after crossing the systolic or diastolic threshold, just to make sure of the exact value?
With the automatic machines which have largely taken over this is probably a bad idea, in fact some will simply go higher still to try and compensate.

It's unlikely you will ever get an exact value, it's always changing depending on a variety of things, and you don't want to become over concerned about the accuracy, that can also distort the results. It's the averages seen over time that provide the most useful information, unless of course you've had an accident or something. It's usually suggested that you will get the most reliable readings (at home) by sitting, supporting the arm at a level similar to heart level, relax, stay still and quiet then start the machine. When it's finished, check the reading and give your arm a rest for at least 5 minutes, then repeat the process. It's usually best to avoid recording your BP after physical activity, eating or drinking (particularly coffee) and it's probably a good idea to be consistent in which arm you use. Take whichever of the two reading is lowest at the measure. Because this can be rather time-consuming, it's usually suggested people record their BP twice a day for 5-7 days, often for diagnosis or following changes in treatment, most people can cope with that.

Drs. do all sorts of variations on this which allows them to use the measures as diagnostic tests for various disorders, but this isn't usually suggested for people doing home measures. Interestingly, your home measures are likely to be the more accurate than the measures done at the Drs. there are too many things going on that cause your BP to rise during a Drs. visit.
 
  • Like
Likes DeBangis21, DaveE and Swamp Thing
Chagas disease, long considered only a threat abroad, is established in California and the Southern U.S. According to articles in the Los Angeles Times, "Chagas disease, long considered only a threat abroad, is established in California and the Southern U.S.", and "Kissing bugs bring deadly disease to California". LA Times requires a subscription. Related article -...
I am reading Nicholas Wade's book A Troublesome Inheritance. Please let's not make this thread a critique about the merits or demerits of the book. This thread is my attempt to understanding the evidence that Natural Selection in the human genome was recent and regional. On Page 103 of A Troublesome Inheritance, Wade writes the following: "The regional nature of selection was first made evident in a genomewide scan undertaken by Jonathan Pritchard, a population geneticist at the...
Back
Top