Diastolic pressures at ankle

Hello,

I have been long  wondering  about my blood pressure  and there have been a number of opinions about it.   Sometimes I  am told it is  normal, other times,  white  coat, and other  times borderline.    Also hypertensive.

However, I have decided to explore the pressures in my  legs,  measured at the ankle.  

This has NEVER been done during any of my twenty or  so  consultations with primary care or cardiologists or  other  hospital physicians

It has produced a  diastolic  reading in my RIGHT lower  leg, measured  close to the ankle, of  137  compared with less than 100 in the arm ,   and in the left  side lower  leg    103   which is much  closer to the  arm reading

I know what my  doctors will  say,  they will query the method I used or the machine I used,  however,   have tested it  with 2 machines, and  also  tested my 'method' on a friend with far less  alarming results  and diastolic pressure  FAR   closer to  that achieved in the  arm on the  same  side

It is well understood  that the  systolic in the lower  leg  is much higher than in the arm, but my understanding is that diastolic is  supposed to be comparable to that in the arm .    I would say  40mm/hg  and close to 140  is just plain dangerous.

Any  advice ?

Thank you

[CCF HeartMD6]

It is difficult to say why there would be such a large disparity between the diastolic pressure in your leg and arm. It is not standard practice to check the BP in the lower extremities unless there are indications. Such practices are usually used to evaluate for peripheral vascular disease -- which are done by ABI (ankle:brachial index). With a long-standing history of hypertension, if you are having any symptoms in your legs (pain with walking, etc), you should mention this to your regular physician/cardiologist who can appropriatley have you evaluated by an experienced technician.