MENU
A 51-year-old patient, who takes a calcium channel blocker (CCB), reports that he is experiencing constipation. Which CCB is the patient most likely to be taking?
Suggested Answer: C
Get Premium NAPLEX Questions
as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF
Real Exam Format
Detailed Explanations
Instant Access
Get Your Practice Test
Non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers -- which are diltiazem and verapamil -- are statistically more likely to cause constipation. Of these two, verapamil has a higher probability of causing this side effect.
13 comments · newest first
TY
Ty
11 months ago
Surprised to hear that! I didn't know CCBs could affect digestion.
GA
Galen
11 months ago
Amlodipine can cause it too, but not as much as Verapamil.
HA
Harley
12 months ago
Wait, really? I thought all CCBs did that.
CL
Claribel
12 months ago
Totally agree, it's a common side effect!
PH
Phung
12 months ago
Verapamil is known for causing constipation.
AL
Alpha
1 year ago
I’m a bit confused; I thought all CCBs could cause constipation, but maybe verapamil is the most common one?
ST
Stefania
1 year ago
I practiced a similar question, and I think it was about the side effects of different CCBs. Verapamil stood out for causing constipation.
BU
Buck
1 year ago
I think amlodipine is less likely to cause constipation, but I'm not entirely sure.
TI
Tiera
1 year ago
I remember that verapamil is often associated with constipation due to its effects on smooth muscle.
LA
Latia
1 year ago
I'm a bit confused on this one. I can see the logic behind C, but I'm also wondering if D about proving you were right could be important in some cases. I'll have to weigh the options carefully.
ST
Steffanie
1 year ago
Ah, I've got it! The two pieces of information that define an extent are the offset and the length. That makes perfect sense for an extent-based system.
LO
Lorrie
1 year ago
I've got a good feeling about this question. The answer is probably "Print Styles" since that's the option that mentions both paper and page settings.
RE
Rebbeca
1 year ago
Okay, I've got this. The answer has to be live migration. That's the only option here that would allow the VMs to seamlessly move to another hypervisor if the original one fails.