Even the individual behavior o£ diastolic function indices was widespread (Fig 2): PFR increased more than 10 percent in one subject, decreased in four subjects and did not change in sft subjects. A similar behavior was observed for FF Vz and tPFR, to6.
The relationship between diastolic function and left ventricular mass was analyzed: even in those patients whose left ventricular mass decreased more than 10 percent during treatment (three patients), no improvement of the left ventricular diastolic function indices was observed. No relationship was observed between diastolic function changes and the length of the period of treatment and the degree of blood pressure control.
Abnormal diastolic filling is a common finding in essential hypertension. Increased chamber stiffness due to left ventricular hypertrophy plays a major role in affecting diastolic function. However, at the beginning of our study, an impairment of the diastolic function was observed even in the subjects with normal left ventricular mass. Moreover, the prolonged antihypertensive treatment induced sustained blood pressure control but did not improve cardiac filling, even in those subjects whose left ventricular mass was reduced.
Figure 2. Individual values of diastolic (unction indexes before and after treatment with prazosin. PFR = peak filling rate; tPFR = time to peak filling rate; and FFVb = first third filling fraction.