There is important evidence in favor of the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for treating hypertensive urgencies , compared with calcium channel blockers , considering the better effectiveness and the lower frequency of adverse effects ( like headache and flushing )
CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE Hypertensive urgencies are defined as severe elevations in blood pressure without evidence of acute or progressive target-organ damage .
The need for treatment is considered urgent but allows for slow control using oral or sublingual drugs .
If the increase in blood pressure is not associated with risk to life or acute target-organ damage , blood pressure control must be implemented slowly over 24 hours .
For hypertensive urgencies , it is not known which class of antihypertensive drug provides the best results and there is controversy regarding when to use antihypertensive drugs and which ones to use in these situations .
The aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness and safety of oral drugs for hypertensive urgencies .
The Use of Lacidipine in the Management of Hypertensive Crises: A Comparative Study with Nifedipine
& NA ; This study estimated the efficacy of sublingual nifedipine 10 mg vs. sublingual lacidipine 4 mg in the management of hypertensive crises . We studied 40 patients with diastolic blood pressure ≥120 mm Hg , who were divided into two groups of 20 . Blood pressure and heart rate were assessed in the recumbent position before treatment and after 30 , 120 , and 240 min . Comparison of the effectiveness of these drugs was analyzed by Student 's t test . Both drugs tested revealed a statistically significant hypotensive effect on diastolic and systolic blood pressure , and few side effects . Compared with lacidipine , nifedipine had a greater hypotensive effect on diastolic and systolic blood pressure in the first 30 min and on the diastolic blood pressure after the first 120 min . However , the hypotensive effect of lacidipine is statistically significant . After 4 h , both drugs showed a similar efficacy without significant statistical variations . We concluded that in the management of hypertensive crises the use of each of these drugs can have a particular range : nifedipine can be used when a pronounced and rapid blood pressure decrement is necessary , whereas lacidipine can be used when a more gradual effect is preferable
There is important evidence in favor of the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for treating hypertensive urgencies , compared with calcium channel blockers , considering the better effectiveness and the lower frequency of adverse effects ( like headache and flushing )
CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE Hypertensive urgencies are defined as severe elevations in blood pressure without evidence of acute or progressive target-organ damage .
The need for treatment is considered urgent but allows for slow control using oral or sublingual drugs .
If the increase in blood pressure is not associated with risk to life or acute target-organ damage , blood pressure control must be implemented slowly over 24 hours .
For hypertensive urgencies , it is not known which class of antihypertensive drug provides the best results and there is controversy regarding when to use antihypertensive drugs and which ones to use in these situations .
The aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness and safety of oral drugs for hypertensive urgencies .