Low systolic blood pressure

[Myflowers2]

Does anyone have a low systolic blood pressure. Mine is always around 97 to 108

[BobD Volunteer]

Lucky you. At least your doctor won't keep moaning! My wife's has always been around 105/65. If you feel well don't worry.

[Myflowers2 in reply to BobD]

I thought it was not good to be below 120 systolic

[BobD Volunteer in reply to Myflowers2]

We are what we are. I once encountered an old chap (ex Lifeboat coxwain) with a heart rate of 36 which he had all his life and perfectly healthy. At HR 36 I would cease to function! "Normals" are generalisations. Doctors have been pushing my BP down and down for two decades till I got to 120/75 at which point I said enough and refused further medication.

[Myflowers2 in reply to BobD]

120/75 is good

[BobD Volunteer in reply to Myflowers2]

Actually 120/70 just now, thought I'd check.

[Tapanac in reply to BobD]

Ooh I was told 120/70 was a young healthy late teenagers ideal BP!!! Obviously getting younger all the time - or second childhood!

Pat x

[Prettywoman15 in reply to Myflowers2]

I’m so confused. Dr had me on 60mg of Valsartin. I was running very low blood pressure and feeling faint. So he took me off Valsartin

Then Thursday night I couldn’t walk straight and ended up my bpwas 198/103

Told if bp goes over 130 to take a pill

Naturally I don’t know what to do

Calling cardiologist Monday

[Desanthony]

If you are worried or have symptoms which worry you from this then see your GP, cardio nurse or consultant and get it checked. My wife passed out with pressure at 111/65 but then she normally is on the higher side of normal - whatever that is. It also depends on when you take your BP - my wife's is always on the higher side even if she has been sitting down doing nothing for half an hour before taking it. Most people find if they take it after eating and/or drinking (especially something hot) then the BP is higher and it will change through out the day especially during activity and exercise. I had to monitor my wife's pressure and take it 3 times a day and take three readings for the GP when they were monitoring her some years ago. So best thing is to talk to your Doc about this.

[Popepaul]

My systolic pressure is usually about 107 when I am in NSR. It goes up to about 116 if I do not take bisoprolol. It become labile during Afib.

[Buffafly]

What’s worse is low diastolic pressure - if that is below 60 regularly you should see someone. But take it at home as Desanthony described because it will go up at the dr’s!

[Cavalierrubie]

I have low blood pressure. Mine is the same as yours, but does go up and down. If you don’t have any symptoms then it may be normal for you. Mayo Clinic says that some people have BP as low as 70/40 without symptoms and can be normal for them, sounds dire, but true. I wouldn’t worry too much. Supposed to be healthy! Just keep well hydrated and don’t have hot showers.

[SamAdmin Administrator Arrhythmia Alliance AF Association]

Good afternoon

Thank you for your post on the Atrial Fibrillation support forum.

We have a booklet on 'Living with low blood pressure' you may find useful, please see link below:

api.heartrhythmalliance.org...

Kind regards

SamAdmin

Booklet

[Karendeena]

Yes, mine is nearly always in this range and I suffer no symptoms. My GP says better to be this way than high BP

[PoorlyWifeHeart]

My wife (the patient for the posts on this forum) has systolic of 89-99 with diastolic 48-58. It is rare for her to get a 100+ systolic reading these days since she started back on bisoprolol 2.5mg (edit: and Lisinopril started at same time, but we assume it is bisoprolol driving down BP). She functions fairly normally. Doctors don't seem concerned and said better to be lower.

Whilst I believe her averages would be technically "low" according to UK guidelines, a couple of the ED consultants she's seen in the past said there is no such thing as low blood pressure if you don't have symptoms.

Hope this helps put your mind at rest that yours may be normal for you. But see your doctor if worried.

[CDreamer]

I wouldn’t consider that low. I used to have very low BP which meant I would faint. I was told that as long as systolic was over 90 it was OK medically. I lived with BP with systolic rarely over 90 for 30 years and it was only until I read the STARS site and went to AA Patient Day I really started learning about BP and lifestyle.

Unless you have symptoms, don’t be concerned.

heartrhythmalliance.org/sta...

You will see here that systolic of less than 90 is the determining number for Hypotension.

Hope that helps.

[BrotherThomas]

I also have a similar blood pressure to yours, typically 95 - 110 and 65- 75 with a pulse 60 - 75. I feel absolutely fine with no dizziness or light headedness so just accept that that's me. My GP says my numbers are just fine.

[Ppiman]

120mm Hg is the top end of what is considered normal. My daughter in law and wife are similar to you, with both being even lower at times. Mine can fall to similar at times but is more often 115-120mm. Having a high BP seems, from very many studies, to be something to be avoided.

The normal range according to the NHS website for BP is 90/60 to 120/80. A low pressure can cause symptoms at times as my daughter-in-law finds, but she finds that she needs to drink more water when that occurs.

Steve

[Auriculaire in reply to Ppiman]

I believe the word "normal "is being misused here. Normal should mean that a majority of people have it. "Desirable " would be a more appropriate word and even that is dodgy as who decides what is desirable? Those wishing to get a larger share of the population on blood pressure medication? It was always recognised by doctors that as we aged blood pressure rose and there was a formula for working out what was an acceptable blood pressure for one's age. Now everybody is expected go have the blood pressure of a healthy young adult and badgered into medication if they don't. How many falls are caused by this in older frailer adults? Falling and breaking your hip due to dizziness caused by over lowered blood pressure is far more dangerous than being a few points over the magic numbers . My doctor luckily does not suscribe to this nonsense. My blood pressure is regularly 130-140 /70-80 and he always says perfect. When I went for my pre colonoscopy appointment with the anaesthetist he looked at my latest blood results and said "a bit of cholesterol like everybody" and pronounce my blood pressure "fine". I find this approach much more reassuring than the one size fits all ,bean counter mindset that seems to prevail in the UK.

[pusillanimous in reply to Auriculaire]

I once asked my GP who decided and when, what our BP should be, and she did not know, she just went by what the texy books said.

[Ppiman in reply to Auriculaire]

It is a good point regarding the use of the idea of "normal", but I think most people would accept the term as meaning the average healthy level. In fact, I might be wrong, but I believe that for people over 60, a doctor does count for age and will only start look to treat BPs of 140/90, all else being equal (a kind of Chads2 score is used to determine CV risk, I believe). I gather that women, in general, can live with higher BPs than men thanks to biological differences.

Even then, as I understand it, blood pressures over 140/90 are first treated conservatively with exercise and dietary means, and, only when these can't be used or fail are drugs used (i.e. much as with diabetes).

I think I would struggle to take a generally cynical view about the role of Big Pharma in this area, given the clear evidence for morbidity and mortality from cardiovascular illness. After all, it's been studied so marvellously and intensively in massive worldwide trials that, for me, it seems likely that drugs like statins, beta blockers and antihypertensives are - by and large - prescribed properly in the hope of extending life and its quality by preventing heart failure, ischaemia and strokes.

Steve

[Auriculaire in reply to Ppiman]

See the latest study to come out in the Lancet that confirms that statins provoke diabetes in non diabetics and worsen glucose control in already diabetics. This has been done by the Oxford lot who have been hanging on to their data and not sharing it for ages. They have masses of patient level data from trials. The numbers are small but given that diabetics have a greater chance of getting cardiovascular disease it seems counterproductive to give people a drug to lower cholesterol to below an arbitrary number when the cholesterol causes heart disease hypothesis remains that - a hypothesis .Also latest American guidelines are saying that for primary prevention about a 40% reduction in prescribing should be considered as there are loads of people taking statins who DO NOT NEED THEM. Given that both these studies will result in a big drop in statin prescription eventually - when the message to GPs gets through which could be a few years- the cynic in me says that pharma have decided they have made their pot out of statins , had a good run and are turning their energies to pushing something else . I might even live long enough to see them go the same way as fibrates.

[Ppiman in reply to Auriculaire]

I can only find Reith’s meta-analysis which concluded in favour of statins.

“Importantly, however, any theoretical adverse effects of statins on cardiovascular risk that might arise from these small increases in glycaemia (or, indeed, from any other mechanism) are already accounted for in the overall reduction in cardiovascular risk that is seen with statin therapy in these trials.”

[Auriculaire in reply to Ppiman]

Well they would say that wouldn't they ? The CTT Collaboration are one of the biggest advocates of statins and have received millions from statin manufacturers. They also refuse to share their data on the trials with independent researchers so that their claims about statin efficacy can be verified. Commercial secret you know. Diabetes does not just pose extra cardiovascular risks . Are the statins protecting the other body parts diabetes affects? Kidneys, eyes, feet etc? Given that meta analyses of statin benefits give increased average longevity for primary prevention as a few days why take the risk of getting diabetes (or liver disease , cataracts , cognitive problems etc etc ).

[Ppiman in reply to Auriculaire]

Yes, they would, but not necessarily for the cynical reason you automatically ascribe.

It's clear that the effect of statins is complex and if they do have a positive effect on longevity, especially on anyone already suffered a CV disease, then this is looking more and more as if it is a balance.

I know two diabetics, insulin dependent, who reached their nineties. The two I know with peripheral diseases both have high blood pressure. I am sure the story is more complex than that which you tell; but I am equally sure that the way the American health system works might be against finding out the reality of statin use. I trust the Oxford scientists more than I do some others. But who am I, or indeed you, to know?

Steve

[Auriculaire in reply to Ppiman]

Why would you trust " scientists" who have categorically refused to allow independent researchers to see their data for verification? I am talking about putting millions of people for life on a drug that increases their risk of getting diabetes because they have total cholesterol over the magic number 5. Not because they actually have any manifestation of CV disease A number that was arbitrarily lowered by an American panel a majority of whose members had financial ties to statin manufacturers. That happens all over the world .

[Ppiman in reply to Auriculaire]

Why? Because I spent two decades working with scientists and believe I understand them and their subject well. I also understand how their work can be hijacked and manipulated in the cause of profit. However, thus far, I have not been convinced that NICE and similar use "magic" to determine anything. They use published, rational means to draw a conclusion based on best evidence.

Steve

[JOY2THEWORLD49 in reply to Auriculaire]

Hi

This 1-1 conversation between 2 astute persons on forum is interesting.

But I made my mind up through a medical scientist magazine. Amongst other details it told us that cholesterol CANNOT be measured and told us why.

I'm happy with my cholesterol of 7 minus good LDL 1.9.

We all need cholesterol for our nerve health etc.

Interestingly when I had my Embollic Stroke, through Thyroid Cancer and AF rapid and persistent, my carotid arteries were squeaky clean, one rogue clot formed and got stuck in my left frontal lobe. At 2am I awoke in 2019 with a solid headache. I never get headaches. I was tired, I did not look in the mirror and went back to sleep! Later I awoke at 5.30am didnt make the loo, had a shower and looked in the mirror! Oh dear stroke call the ambulance.

Research by asking questions to google and find the best researching Compant - Radcliffe Research is one I love.

cherio JOY. 75 (NZ)

[Singwell in reply to Auriculaire]

Yes, you make a very good point here. I mentioned to the cardiologist a while back that now I was off BP tablets I checked morning and night and it's nearly always 120/80 or lower and was it OK that when tested on site during that visit it came up at 135/87. He said - your BP is the best I've seen all morning. Don't worry about it.

[Auriculaire in reply to Singwell]

Doctor checks in the surgery are pretty useless for BP. They take no account of what the patient was doing before arriving , the fact that blood pressure changes throughout the day and white coat syndrome. One visit recently to my GP for prescription renewal my systolic was150+. My GP knew this was unusal for me . I had had a horrendous drive through dense fog to get to the surgery ! He went back go his computer and I lay on the bed for 5 mins relaxing and he took it again. It had come down to 135. Now doing that would take up at least half of the time you are allowed for an appointment in the UK - if you have managed to land yourself the prize of a face to face in the first place. I know my blood presure is fine because when I have been in hospital they take it several times a day. You are generally lying down relaxing as there is nothing else to do there. It is always less than 120/80 .

[Blissygirl]

I’ve just had an ablation (my 2nd) and when in hospital BP was very low. They weren’t too worried but I’m a bit of a fainter which isn’t good. But I take BP meds so go figure! I’m 69.

[Sozo]

Oh yes mine is pretty much that as well. I don't get concerned at all until it drops to around 90 or below and I don't feel well.

[Palpman]

Normal systolic is between 90 and 120 according to WHO.

[Myflowers2 in reply to Palpman]

Thank you for all the replies

[Madscientist16]

Mine runs 105/70 and I feel great. Doctor does not mind a bit.

[JOY2THEWORLD49]

Hi

Are you on any meds for BP?

On Bisoprolol 2.5 evenings my systolic has gone from 150-160 to 110-130!

Your systollic to 108 is great. If you feel OK with it - it's great.

cherio JOY. 75. (NZ)