Dear Karen,Diuretics are the first line of treatment for hypertension, even for patients who have no visible edema. They're generally safe, effective, well tolerated, and inexpensive. Lopressor is a beta blocker. Beta blockers decrease vascular tone (they prevent constriction of peripheral blood vessels). Beta blockers and diuretics are often used together for effective blood pressure control. If your husband needs additional medication for his blood pressure there are plenty of other categories of medication to try, and it would still be safe and reasonable to use a diuretic (should the need arise).
At least your doctor didn't ignore or dismiss your concerns about the diuretic.
Like I said in another message on this forum to a 19 year old fella who was worried he had cancer because he was treated for a UTI and didn't get better, "
it really drive me nuts when my colleagues jump on the easy diagnosis." The only reliable way to diagnose a UTI is by doing a urine culture. I can't understand why any physician would want to diagnose and treat a UTI without a culture. It's not like it's a really expensive or complicated test - and in the absence of urinary symptoms and white cells in the urine why would UTI even be the most reasonable diagnosis!?! I have this argument with ERs all the time, but I'm a bit surprised that a urologist would take that approach.
Hey, but then my urologist followed me for 8 years for microscopic blood in my urine without repeating the cystoscopy after the initial one. When I started having increased twinges and asked him how we'd know if everything was okay since I always had the hematuria he said do a cytology, and when that showed sheets of atypical cells he said it was okay. If I hadn't urinated a clot a month later, I'd either be dead or among the members on this board who had an RC and maybe even chemo. He told me that he learned from my case that he'd have to be more aggressive in evaluating perisitent hematuria - Thank you very much!
