Giornale italiano di cardiologia
-
Comparative Study
[Left ventricular filling studied by echo-Doppler in hypertensive and normotensive subjects].
Purpose of the study was to evaluate the influence of different clinical and echocardiographic parameters on left ventricular diastolic filling in a group of 66 mild to moderate hypertensive subjects (mean age = 45.9 +/- 13.9 yrs) and in 49 normotensive controls (mean age = 44.2 +/- 15.9 yrs). All subjects underwent an echocardiographic study with pulsed Doppler evaluation of left ventricular filling. In the hypertensives, a noninvasive 24-hour blood pressure monitoring was performed. ⋯ Under the age of 40 only VmaxE/VmaxA was significantly different in the two groups (p less than 0.05), while in the subjects older than 40 yrs both VmaxE/VmaxA and Earea/Aarea differed to a great level of statistical significance (p less than 0.001). The results of the present study allow the following conclusions: 1) age has the greatest influence on diastolic filling in both hypertensive and normotensive individuals. Diastolic filling is impaired in mild to moderate hypertension, when systolic function is still normal; 2) the worsening of diastolic filling determined by hypertension is more evident in the subjects greater than 40 yrs; 3) the only clinical variable that influences diastolic filling, independently of age, is 24MBP, while office blood pressure, MAXIND and left ventricular ejection fraction do not seem to be related to this clinical entity.
-
Propafenone and flecainide, both I C class drugs, are first choice in the treatment of paroxysmal supraventricular reciprocating tachycardia. The aim of this study was to check whether a negative or paradoxical electropharmacological test with one of the two drugs was predictive of an equally negative or paradoxical test with the other drug. Thirty patients with disabling paroxysmal supraventricular reciprocating tachycardia, 16 M, 14 F, mean age 30.6 +/- 16 years, were studied with serial electropharmacological tests using esophageal approach. The reentry circuit was sustained by an anomalous pathway in 25 patients (83.5%) whereas it was idionodal in the other 5 (16.5%). Propafenone was tested in 13 patients (43.5%, group A) after flecainide had resulted negative or paradoxical in the first test. In 17 patients (56.5%, group B) flecainide was tested after propafenone had resulted negative or paradoxical. The second drug tested was also ineffective in 14 of the 30 patients (group A + group B) while it had positive results in 16 patients. Specifically, propafenone was positive in 6 of the 13 patients (group A) in whom flecainide had been negative, and flecainide was positive in 10 of the 17 patients (group B) with acute negative or paradoxical propafenone test. These "acute" results were confirmed in steady-state with esophageal study and in the follow-up (21.9 +/- 9.3 months). ⋯ 53.5% of the patients who are "non responders" to the electropharmacological test with one of the two drugs (propafenone or flecainide) may be "responders" to the other drug. Thus the ineffectiveness of one of the two drugs is not predictive of ineffectiveness of the other.