@entity460 -channel blockers in acute XXXX .

@entity1 @entity101 @entity6555 @entity1855 @entity6335 @entity1854 @entity2514 @entity460 @entity594 @entity1338 @entity551
The acutely @entity101 @entity1 may present with a broad spectrum of dysfunction. Given the wide variety of signs and symptoms, clinical settings, pathophysiological mechanisms, and type of end organ dysfunction, there is no ideal antihypertensive agent. In selecting an agent for treating such @entity1 , the physician must consider efficacy in a variety of settings, rapidity of onset of action, duration of action, and ease of administration. In addition, one should keep in mind the risk of producing @entity551 , the contraindication profile, the side-effect profile, and the cost and long-term usefulness of the agent. In this review, the @entity460 channel blockers @entity1855 and @entity594 are compared with drugs such as @entity1854 , @entity6335 , @entity2514 , @entity6555 , and @entity1338 . @entity1855 , by intravenous administration, has a rapid onset of action, a reasonable duration of effect, a good side-effect profile, and appears to be useful on a long-term basis. @entity594 , by oral or buccal administration, is useful in a variety of settings and had a rapid onset of action and reasonable duration of effect. In addition, @entity594 rarely causes @entity551 , has minimal contraindications, an excellent side-effect profile, reasonable cost, and long-term utility. There is now extensive worldwide experience with @entity1855 and @entity594 in acute @entity101 . They compare favorably with currently used agents.
