orthostatics

[nbsp]

Your teacher was 100% right. the correct word is "ORTHOSTATIC"

>>>>>>>... Page 1180 of Tabers Cycolpedic Medical Dictionary Copyright 1985

Defines Orthostatic as "straight, causing to stand or concerning an erect postion"

It defines Orthostatic Hypotension as "Postural Hypotension"

as for Orthostasis.............the word is not listed.... so just because Google doesnt have a word,,,, doesnt mean it is wrong

You need to read closer. Orthostatic is in your dictionary, listed as an adjective. Orthostatics is apparently not. Orthostasis is the noun form of the adjective orthostatic. Stasis, noun. Static, adjective. Statics... well that's a different story. And I have no idea why "orthostasis" is not listed. Perhaps different people have different conventions when referring to this.

As Dust has already corrected me (yet again in this thread), orthostatics and orthostasis are both words. My impression after further reading was that orthostasis was used in reference to the condition and orthostatics was used in reference to the test for orthostatic hypertension. But here are the words of a voice I trust:

Orthostasis is the process of maintaining circulatory balance during changes in posture. It is a process.

Orthostatics are the measurements of orthostasis. They are numbers.

Yes it was in a private message. Sue me.

And the google comment was just so people would know that googling "orthostatics" would not yield any useful information, which lead to my completely retarded first post which was meant to request information, but ended up commenting on something I had no business commenting on because I am vastly unqualified. I only found good information after googling "orthostasis". Try it yourself, one word will yield absolutely nothing useful while the other will yield much more.

Apparently you are also as unqualified on a different subject: reading your dictionary. One letter can change the meaning of words. Be more careful when looking things up.

To the rest of you, I could not apologize enough for my blunderous involvment on this thread.

[rocket]

I like FormerEMSLT297 and Bushy's use of the term "postural hypotension" since it seems to communicate what is happening so clearly. FWIW I think I've heard/read the terms postural hypotension and orthostatic hypotension in pretty much equal measure.

Can we get back to the mechanics of it for a moment? As I understand it a person stands up and some volume of blood "pools" in the lower extremities. Baroreceptors (pressure sensors in the plumbing up above so to speak) recognize this as a drop in pressure and call for an adjustment in container volume, etc by way of kicking up a release of catecholamines via the autonomic nervous system.

As such, shouldn't anything that could affect this system be considered when we are thinking about checking for orthostatic changes in BP? Although I have mostly observed medics checking this (along with skin turgor, etc) as evidence of dehydration it seems like ANS failure or even alpha-blocker use (say to control hypertension or prostate conditions) would also be potential causes of such findings.

-Trevor

[BushyFromOz]

I like FormerEMSLT297 and Bushy's use of the term "postural hypotension" since it seems to communicate what is happening so clearly.

You know i had to go back and actually see if i wrote that?

Been a while since i looked at this thread :?

[NREMT-Basic]

I understand where youre coming from, I'm just saying that it is probably just as incorrect to assume that your alcutated blood pressure is accurate within +-2mmHg as it is to say "I heard the first thump when the needle was about halfway between 120 and 130." Lets not kid ourselves. Theres plenty of fudge room and variablity in blood pressure measurement-- who is to say that a reading of 124 is correct while a reading of 125 is not. Just because there isnt a tick between two slashes on the gauge doesnt mean that that isnt where the first thump was heard. How is it more accurate to round up or round down in these cases? In between 124 and 126 will always be 125... As long as someone knows how to count, I dont see how this could be a problem.

Fiznat- I agree with you that there are definately blood pressures between the even numbers. However, the standard has been even numbers for quite some time and the fact of the matter is that it will get you odd looks for doctors, nurses and others if you give a BP in an odd number.

That being said, Rid has once again drastically over-simplified matters when he says that no one can read or hear between two even numbered hash marks. Nonsense. I have good hearing and can in fact hear the beat and can differentiate if that audible beat came between two numbers directly on an even number, since I also have satisfactory eyesight. Rid- once again your are extrapolating that since you cant do it, or some people cant do it, that no one can. I have noticed this as a trend in your posts and find it disturbing especially in one of your experience. Using words like "most, all, none, never, always" or making sweeping generalizations can be the mark of a nay sayer and would seem to really have no place in discussions of medical procedures, etc. It might even be more palatable if you couched it more often as your opinion and your opinion alone rather than expressing it as a documented certainty.

There are better way to judge peoples credibility... all I'm sayin...

[BushyFromOz]

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Do you revell in finding an argument?

[Dustdevil]

As such, shouldn't anything that could affect this system be considered when we are thinking about checking for orthostatic changes in BP? Although I have mostly observed medics checking this (along with skin turgor, etc) as evidence of dehydration it seems like ANS failure or even alpha-blocker use (say to control hypertension or prostate conditions) would also be potential causes of such findings.

Good observation. This is why we also check for pulse changes, not just BP changes. Sometimes the body compensates so quickly that a drop in pressure is not noted, however a dramatic rise in pulse is noted, which was part of the compensatory response.

Indeed, there are multiple factors at work in the body attempting to maintain homeostatic blood pressure. What you touched upon creates an interesting phenomenon that we run across in people with hypertension. They get diagnosed at stage III and get put on antihypertensives by their physician, who also recommends they watch their diet, get some exercise, and lose some weight. Of course, very few of those people actually do any of that, except for take the medicine. But those few people who get serious about getting in shape start losing weight and getting healthier. Then a few months down the line they come to me feeling weak and dizzy and having no energy. Problem is, their antihypertensive is still treating them as if they were still 250 pounds, not 200! Consequently, we have to back down, or even discontinue their medicine for them to have a normal pressure again.

[ERDoc]

What sort of pulse increase and BP decrease does everyone use as their cut off to say if someone is orthostatic or not? What research backs your values?

[AnthonyM83]

Therefore, if I hear the first thump when the needle is halfway-ish between 120 and 130mmHg, why not call the systolic 125? Not that 1-2mmHg is gonna make one bit of difference for treatment anyways.

While I do report my BPs in even numbers, I agree with FizNat's thinking. It would be less accurate to report 124 or 126 when the first sound was heart in between the lines for each. Why does it matter if there's a line or a space at the pont you hear or stop hearing the sounds?

As for old pulses, I'll put them down, but usually write in 63 (21 x 3)...also helps them know the accuracy of my reading. In weird positions or bumpy roads where I only get a few seconds of smooth driving, I'll often do 6 seconds times 10.

To NREMT:

I understand how Dust's posts can come off to someone new to the site, but sit back and read through a lot of his posts. He doesn't putting people down for not knowing things or asking questions, but there are a lot of posts about the skill level of EMTs in general...kind of half cynical posts. And with good reason (as you heard others chime in on this thread about EMTs not knowing basic BPs). Use it as motivation to never be one of those said EMTs...and if you need help with something, he'll help you (probably ) But a lot of it is just style of humor and personality, not actual bashing people on the board without reason.