←back to thread

I didn't reverse-engineer the protocol for my blood pressure monitor in 24 hours

(james.belchamber.com)
327 points jamesbelchamber | 6 comments | 11 Nov 25 21:25 UTC | HN request time: 0.003s | source | bottom
Show context
cestith ◴[11 Nov 25 21:45 UTC] No.45893306[source]▶
Regarding white coat hypertension, the shot isn’t always necessary. Some people’s blood pressure just goes up from the stress of the clinical setting.
replies(14): >>45893475 #>>45893635 #>>45893849 #>>45894005 #>>45894270 #>>45894485 #>>45895530 #>>45896224 #>>45896258 #>>45896522 #>>45898517 #>>45898702 #>>45899150 #>>45900224 #
dhosek ◴[11 Nov 25 23:47 UTC] No.45894485[source]▶
I got it when an eye clinic wanted to do my blood pressure (which is kind of weird in itself), which they did shortly after the glaucoma test which never works for me because I have an overdeveloped blink reflex and it turned up high.

It really amazes me how people whose job it is to take blood pressure don’t recognize the stress situations that people are in might result in abnormal readings.

replies(5): >>45894627 #>>45894638 #>>45895248 #>>45897120 #>>45900363 #
1. dns_snek ◴[12 Nov 25 06:57 UTC] No.45897120[source]▶
> It really amazes me how people whose job it is to take blood pressure don’t recognize the stress situations that people are in might result in abnormal readings.

I've had a doctor measure my heart rate right after remarking on my "elevated HR during intake" (I walked there and I was running late), after telling me some slightly distressing news on what was already a very stressful day, knowing about my white coat anxiety, and right around the time of peak effects of stimulant medication which they also know about. Wouldn't you believe it, my heart rate was high (110)!

Then I got a front seat to watch their confirmation bias kick in, and have them make some really faulty assumptions based on this bad information. They were quite sure that I had developed a certain medical condition but the lab tests quickly proved them completely wrong.

replies(1): >>45898131 #
2. stavros ◴[12 Nov 25 09:30 UTC] No.45898131[source]▶
110 isn't high, though?
replies(2): >>45898240 #>>45898454 #
3. Delk ◴[12 Nov 25 09:48 UTC] No.45898240[source]▶
It would be pretty high for a resting heart rate.
replies(1): >>45898898 #
4. saghm ◴[12 Nov 25 10:19 UTC] No.45898454[source]▶
I tend to always have a higher heart rate whenever I'm at a doctor's office compared to when I've tested resting at home (in the 100-110 range compared to 90-95), and my experience is that anything in the triple digits will tend to get some concern from whoever is taking the measurements. It's gotten to the point that I need to preemptively tell them before they take the measurements that yes, it's going to be high, but I've seen a cardiologist about it, and they didn't consider it to be an issue given that it's consistently lower when tested in other circumstances. Without that disclaimer before hand, whoever takes the measurement often will grow concerned even a rate of something like 105 and feel the need to test again and ask a lot of probing questions. At this point I have to imagine that the level of scrutiny has only made my heart rate go up even more during those tests, making the disclaimer even more necessary to avoid my visits getting derailed.
replies(1): >>45898901 #
5. stavros ◴[12 Nov 25 11:34 UTC] No.45898898{3}[source]▶
Oh sorry, I thought BP.
6. stavros ◴[12 Nov 25 11:34 UTC] No.45898901{3}[source]▶
Sorry, I thought BP, please disregard my comment.