Cited by 68Cardiovascular and exercise physiologyBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesCardiovascular Effects of Exercise

Exercise Blood Pressure Guidelines: Time to Re-evaluate What is Normal and Exaggerated?

Currie, Katharine D., Floras, John S., La Gerche, Andre, Goodman, Jack M.·2018·Sports Medicine

Abstract

Blood pressure responses to graded exercise testing can provide important diagnostic and prognostic information. While published guidelines outline what constitutes a "normal" and "abnormal" (i.e., exaggerated) blood pressure response to exercise testing, the widespread use of exaggerated blood pressure responses as a clinical tool is limited due to sparse and inconsistent data. A review of the original sources from these guidelines reveals an overall lack of empirical evidence to support both the normal blood pressure responses and their upper limits. In this current opinion, we critically evaluate the current exercise blood pressure guidelines including (1) the normal blood pressure responses to graded exercise testing; (2) the upper limits of this normal response; (3) the blood pressure criteria for test termination; and (4) the thresholds for exaggerated blood pressure responses. We provide evidence that exercise blood pressure responses vary according to subject characteristics, and subsequently a re-evaluation of what constitutes normal and abnormal responses is necessary to strengthen the clinical utility of this assessment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40279-018-0900-x

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A lack of workload standardization is a methodological consideration that perhaps contributes toward uncertainties surrounding the clinical value of EEBP.

    “Alack of workload standardization is a methodological consideration that perhaps contributes toward the uncertainties surrounding the clinical value EEBP (24,37).”
  • The normal rate of SBP increase during exercise testing varies with age and sex, ranging from approximately 5 to 8 mm Hg per MET, and is less steep in females and healthy young people.

    “As discussed by Currie et al. (24), the normal rate of SBP increase (represented by the middle lines in each panel of Fig. 2) will vary based on several factors including age and sex (ranging from ~5 to 8 mm Hg·MET -1 , being less steep in females and healthy young).”
  • There is a lack of clarity regarding exact thresholds above which exaggerated exercise blood pressure denotes increased cardiovascular disease risk.

    “Notwithstanding a lack of clarity regarding exact thresholds above which denotes increased CVD risk related to EEBP (24)”
  • Clinical data outlined in this review imply that blood pressure recorded during submaximal exercise may hold the most clinically relevant information about high blood pressure and cardiovascular disease risk.

    “Notwithstanding a lack of clarity regarding exact thresholds above which denotes increased CVD risk related to EEBP (24), the clinical data outlined in this review imply that BP recorded during submaximal exercise may hold the most clinically relevant information about high BP and CVD risk.”
  • The rate of systolic BP increase during exercise varies based on age, sex, ethnicity, cardiorespiratory fitness, and overall health status.

    “The rate of systolic BP increase will vary based on age, sex, ethnicity, cardiorespiratory fitness, and overall health status [14].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Currie, K. D., Floras, J. S., La Gerche, A., & Goodman, J. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Mount Sinai Hospital (CA)
Corresponding author
Goodman, Jack M.
Venue
Sports Medicine
Published
2018-03-24
Volume
48
Issue
8
Pages
1763-1771
ISSN
  • 0112-1642 (ISSN-L)
  • 1179-2035
OpenAlex
W2791651485
Cited by
68
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
FWCI
7.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Sports Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MFE-140863)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Effects of Exercise
Keywords
blood pressure response to exercise, incremental exercise test, exaggerated blood pressure response, blood pressure guidelines, test termination criteria, reference values, hypertension
MeSH terms
Blood Pressure, Exercise Test, Humans, Hypertension, Prognosis, Exercise

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review