Does anyone remember what the "old" standards were for Hypertension?

[dancer67]

Does anyone know when the new standard of 120/80 came in? (120-139 pre-hypertension)

 

And what USED to be the old guideline of hypertension. Was it always 140/90 and higher?

 

Wondering if somehow the drug companies got involved with the new "standards"

[Laurie4b]

Does anyone know when the new standard of 120/80 came in? (120-139 pre-hypertension)

 

And what USED to be the old guideline of hypertension. Was it always 140/90 and higher?

 

Wondering if somehow the drug companies got involved with the new "standards"

 

No, 140's used to be considered "borderline." Don't know about the diastolic. I don't know about drug companies--bp in the 140's can almost always be brought down with diet and exercise. My understanding is the new standards came about because of longitudinal studies showing harm over time with what had been considered a safe bp.

[dancer67]

No, 140's used to be considered "borderline." Don't know about the diastolic. I don't know about drug companies--bp in the 140's can almost always be brought down with diet and exercise. My understanding is the new standards came about because of longitudinal studies showing harm over time with what had been considered a safe bp.

 

Thank you for replying. I have been doing a study on HTN, and could not find any data on the old standards.

 

I thought I read that your age plus 100 for Systolic was normal "back then".

 

It seems as though the new HTN guidelines now are so strict, that everyone I know is on BP meds(including myself)

 

It may explain though, that even though I had a reading of 140/82 at the Dr's on meds, she would not increase them.

 

I think she is old school, and does not seem to overprescribe.

 

I am curious to see how much of a hand the drug companies who make HBP meds have their hand in this though. They must be raking in billions of dollars.

[Perry]

Does anyone know when the new standard of 120/80 came in? (120-139 pre-hypertension)

 

And what USED to be the old guideline of hypertension. Was it always 140/90 and higher?

 

Wondering if somehow the drug companies got involved with the new "standards"

 

The new guidelines come from The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7), published in 2003.

 

Prior to that, the guidelines came from the JNC 6, published in 1997.

 

Here's what the JNC 7 says about the changes:

 

 

Because of the new data on lifetime risk of hypertension

and the impressive increase in the risk of

cardiovascular complications associated with

levels of BP previously considered to be normal,

the JNC 7 report has introduced a new classification

that includes the term “prehypertension”

for those with BPs ranging from 120–139 mmHg

systolic and/or 80–89 mmHg diastolic. This new

designation is intended to identify those individuals

in whom early intervention by adoption of

healthy lifestyles could reduce BP, decrease the

rate of progression of BP to hypertensive levels

with age, or prevent hypertension entirely.

Another change in classification from JNC 6 is

the combining of stage 2 and stage 3 hypertension

into a single stage 2 category. This revision

reflects the fact that the approach to the management

of the former two groups is similar (table 2).

 

 

[dancer67]

Perry

 

 

Thanks so much for posting this!!;)

[Perry]

Perry

 

 

Thanks so much for posting this!!;)

 

You're welcome. FYI, JNC 8 is supposed to be out next fall (2011).

[KidsHappen]

The new guidelines come from The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7), published in 2003.

 

Prior to that, the guidelines came from the JNC 6, published in 1997.

 

Here's what the JNC 7 says about the changes:

 

I think another consideration is BP spikes. My regular BP is in the prehypertensive category but spikes up to 180/100 or even higher sometimes when I am in pain and I am a chronic pain patient with a very bad family history. My dr. says that repeated spikes like that can be very dangerous and even cause a heart attack themselves.

[dancer67]

You're welcome. FYI, JNC 8 is supposed to be out next fall (2011).

 

Perry

 

Do you happen to know if they are changing the standards again?

 

And thanks again!:D

[sandalwood]

 

It may explain though, that even though I had a reading of 140/82 at the Dr's on meds, she would not increase them.

 

I think she is old school, and does not seem to overprescribe.

 

.

 

I have to go to the cardiologist 2x a year for a very mild heart "issue" anyhow but my BP has been high for a long time. Until he got my med. regulated, he tweaked it here and there. Anyhow, he wants mine to be in the 115 range on top at most with the medication. He flips out if mine is over 120/80 at a checkup. According to him, with the amt. of medication I take he wants it in the teens ideally. All the old ideals are way out of date according to him. Just a different perspective for you.

[TCB]

I went to nursing school in the early 80's and then, they definately told us 100 plus your age for upper limit of systolic. I can't remember for sure about diastolic but think it was 80.

[Perry]

Perry

 

Do you happen to know if they are changing the standards again?

 

And thanks again!:D

Not that I know of, but it isn't really my area of focus so I could be wrong. The JNC guidelines are very evidence-driven, and I haven't heard of any large studies that have come out recently that would cause big changes. I wouldn't be surprised if there is some minor tweaking of recommendations, especially with regard to certain risk groups, but I don't know any specifics.

[dancer67]

I have to go to the cardiologist 2x a year for a very mild heart "issue" anyhow but my BP has been high for a long time. Until he got my med. regulated, he tweaked it here and there. Anyhow, he wants mine to be in the 115 range on top at most with the medication. He flips out if mine is over 120/80 at a checkup. According to him, with the amt. of medication I take he wants it in the teens ideally. All the old ideals are way out of date according to him. Just a different perspective for you.

 

I think it depends on your Dr's goals for you. My Dr. feels less medication is better. As long as it stays under 140 and under 90. And she will not just go by one reading. Now today I was in the office and it was 135/82.

I do not have any heart issues though, so your Dr may want yours low for that reason. I don't know.

 

I was on a higher dose of medication(10mg Lisinopril) and it made my BP drop like a ROCK. It was down to like 105/65, and my pressure, even before DX always ran above 120 and 80 and above, even as a teenager.

So she cut me back to 5mg. My low end now runs around 118/72 to the highest of 140/84.

 

Prior to meds it was around 158/92.

 

So everyone has their own normal highs and lows. I know I felt like crap with my pressure that low.

 

My SIL who does not take BP meds, has low BP. Hers runs about 100/60 and she feels fine. Everyone is different.:D

[dancer67]

Not that I know of, but it isn't really my area of focus so I could be wrong. The JNC guidelines are very evidence-driven, and I haven't heard of any large studies that have come out recently that would cause big changes. I wouldn't be surprised if there is some minor tweaking of recommendations, especially with regard to certain risk groups, but I don't know any specifics.

 

It wouldn't surprise me either. If they say new guidelines are going to be 110/70, I might just have to question that...:lol:

[TravelingChris]

I am not getting any treatment for anything below 140/90. Nor will I have my husband do that either. I have seen any evidence for medications in people below that. I would need to be convinced since I don't think one should take medications without clear need.