> So can I pretty much ignore my diastolic number if it doesn't get ridiculously high?
there was a presentation at Hypertension2008 in Berlin this summer which said exactly that: being >50, ignore diastolic
You could also look at the JNC-7 guidelines at the National Institute of Health, which say that systolic is more important that diastolic - and that Pulse Pressure (the difference between the two) might be most important of all. With your Isolated Diastolic Hypertension (same as me), we have low Pulse Pressure.
But the European joint ESC/ESH guidelines say they are equal.
Check again in a few years and things might be different :) because things aren't known for sure.
So can I pretty much ignore my diastolic number if it doesn't get ridiculously high? It goes between 85-95 more than I'd like.
I'm on a beta blocker and Ramapril and Digoxin to control arrhythmias.
Sometimes I get brief runs of VTach where my diastolic is 100 and my heart rate is also 100bpm. Lasts about 3-5 hours per episode.
I found this on the National Heart Blood and Lung Institute website. As follows:
Systolic and diastolic numbers may not be in the same blood pressure category. In this case, the more severe category is the one you're in. For example, if your systolic number is 160 and your diastolic number is 80, you have stage 2 HBP. If your systolic number is 120 and your diastolic number is 95, you have stage 1 HBP.
The claim is that the systolic number is a more important predictor of hypertension problems in people over 50. I was always under the impression that both numbers had equal importance. My diastolic tends to run high (85-95) and my systolic is almost always in normal range (115-130).
Diastolic is more important in people under the age of 50 and systolic is most important in people over 50.