Diastolic dysfunction represents a combination of impaired left ventricular (LV) relaxation, restoration forces, myocyte lengthening load and atrial function culminating in increased LV filling pressures. Current Doppler ECHO cardiographic guidelines recommend using early to late diastolic transmitral flow velocity (E/A). Although has important diagnostic and prognostic implications, they should be interpreted in the context of patients age and the rest of the echo-cardiogram to describe diastolic function and guide patient management. To investigate whether ratio of mitral peak velocity of early filling (E) to mitral peak velocity of late filling (A) can be used as a tool to check the drug’s effectiveness and outcome of any intervention. To prepare a counseling plan to educate patients with reserved ejection fraction. To measure pharmacists’ intervention using E/A ratio. This is a retrospective and prospective, open-label, parallel-arm, randomized controlled study carried out in the Cardiology Department of a 1000 bedded multispecialty tertiary care private teaching hospital in Coimbatore on 80 patients for a period of six months. After the baseline measurements were carried out, the patients were randomized into either Usual Care Group or Interventional Group. The Usual Care Group is subjected to usual care by physician. The Interventional Group were counseled by the pharmacist in addition to the usual care provided by the physician. Statistical analysis was carried out using Student’s T test and One way ANOVA.A total of 80 patients were evaluated for change in the E/A ratios during their subsequent follow-up in a period of 3 months. The Usual Care Group totaled for about of 55% male and 45% female while the Interventional Group contained 65% male and 35% female. The patients were graded according to their respective E/A ratios at the baseline and 45% of the patients had normal E/A values, 47.5% of them with impaired filling and 7.5% had pseudonormal values in the Interventional Group whereas in the Usual Care Group 60% normal, 30% impaired and 10% pseudonormal. The patients were again graded according to the respective E/A ratios at the subsequent follow up after a period of 2 months and the values were found to be 77.5% in the Interventional Group, 17.5% impaired and 5% pseudonormal in the Usual Care Group whereas 80% normal and 20% impaired in Usual Care Group. The study was not able to demonstrate a significant difference between the grading of the ratios in the first and second reviews among both the groups. But the study demonstrated a significant difference in the E/A ratios of the two reviews and was better observed in patients of the Interventional Group when compared to those of the Usual Care Group.