The impact of N-acetylcysteine and ascorbic acid in contrast-induced nephropathy in critical care patients: an open-label randomized controlled study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: The aim was to investigate whether the use of N-acetylcysteine and ascorbic acid reduce contrast-induced nephropathy incidence in critical care patients.This was a one-center, two-arm, prospective, randomized, open-label, controlled trial in the Intensive Care Unit of the University Hospital of Larissa, Greece. Patients with stable renal function, who underwent non urgent contrast-enhanced computed tomography for diagnostic purposes, were included in the study. Patients in the treatment group (NacA, n?=?60) received intravenously N-acetylcysteine (1200 mg) and ascorbic acid (2 g) dissolved separately in 100 ml of normal saline 2 hours before, and at 10 hours and 18 hours following the infusion of contrast agent, while control group patients (CG, n?=?64) received only normal saline. All patients received additional hydration. Contrast-induced nephropathy was defined as relative increase by 25% of the baseline values of serum creatinine.Contrast-induced nephropathy in NacA and CG were 18.33% and 15.6%, respectively (p?=?0.81). The percentage change median (interquartile range (IR)) of serum cystatin-C (mg/L) from baseline in patients who underwent contrast-induced tomography, were 37.23% (28.53) and 93.20% (46.90) in NacA and in CG, respectively (p?=?0.03). The 8-isoprostane serum levels in NacA were significantly lower compared to CG at 2 hours (p?=?0.012) and 24 hours (p?=?0.006) following radiocontrast infusion. Multivariate analysis revealed that contrast-induced nephropathy was independently associated with a higher baseline ratio of serum urea/creatinine (odds ratio, 1.02; 95 CI%, 1.00-1.05) and with the use of nephrotoxic medications (odds ratio, 0.24; 95 CI%, 0.06-0.94).Intravenous administration of N-acetylcysteine and ascorbic acid failed to reduce contrast-induced nephropathy in critically ill patients who underwent contrast-enhanced computed tomography, despite a significant reduction of 8-isoprostane levels in treated patients.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01017796 . Registered on 20 November 2009.
<h4>Background</h4>The aim was to investigate whether the use of N-acetylcysteine and ascorbic acid reduce contrast-induced nephropathy incidence in critical care patients.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a one-center, two-arm, prospective, randomized, open-label, controlled trial in the Intensive Care Unit of the University Hospital of Larissa, Greece. Patients with stable renal function, who underwent non urgent contrast-enhanced computed tomography for diagnostic purposes, were included in the study. ...[more]
Project description:BackgroundFew studies compared the efficacy of theophylline with N-acetylcysteine or evaluated the efficacy of combination therapy in the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN). We compared the efficacy of theophylline, N-acetylcysteine, and the combination of these agents in the prevention of CIN.MethodsThis randomized controlled trial was conducted on 96 patients referring consecutively to the Shahid Chamran University Hospital in Isfahan, Iran, for elective coronary angiography (with our without angioplasty). Patients with at least moderate risk for CIN were included and were randomized to receive theophylline (200 mg), N-acetylcysteine (600 mg), or theophylline + N-acetylcysteine, twice a day, from 24 h before to 48 h after administration of the contrast material. A non-ionic, low-osmolar contrast material was used. Serum creatinine was measured before and 48 h after contrast material injection.ResultsSerum creatinine was increased by 6.83 ± 15.32% with theophylline, 13.09 ± 14.63% with N-acetylcysteine, and 5.45 ±1 3.96% with theophylline + N-acetylcysteine after contrast material injection (between group P = 0.072). Controlling for Mehran risk score, baseline serum creatinine, and contrast volume, the change in serum creatinine level was lower with theophylline compared with N-acetylcysteine (F = 4.79, P = 0.033), and with theophylline + N-acetylcysteine compared with N-acetylcysteine (F = 5.78, P = 0.020). CIN (increase in creatinine of ≥ 0.5 mg/dl or ≥ 25% from the baseline) was occurred in 20%, 21.9%, and 7.1% of patients in the theophylline, N-acetylcysteine, and theophylline + N-acetylcysteine groups, respectively (P = 0.260).ConclusionTheophylline is superior to N-acetylcysteine in preventing contrast-induced renal dysfunction, but the combination with N-acetylcysteine is not superior to theophylline alone in this regard. Further trials with larger sample of patients are warranted.
Project description:BackgroundContrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is one of the common causes of acute renal insufficiency after contrast procedures. Whether intravenous N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is beneficial for the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy is uncertain. In this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, we aimed to assess the efficacy of intravenous NAC for preventing CIN after administration of intravenous contrast media.Study designRelevant studies published up to September 2012 that investigated the efficacy of intravenous N-acetylcysteine for preventing CIN were collected from MEDLINE, OVID, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the conference proceedings from major cardiology and nephrology meetings. The primary outcome was CIN. Secondary outcomes included renal failure requiring dialysis, mortality, and length of hospitalization. Data were combined using random-effects models with the performance of standard tests to assess for heterogeneity and publication bias. Meta-regression analyses were also performed.ResultsTen trials involving 1916 patients met our inclusion criteria. Trials varied in patient demographic characteristics, inclusion criteria, dosing regimens, and trial quality. The summary risk ratio for contrast-induced nephropathy was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.46 to 1.02), a nonsignificant trend towards benefit in patients treated with intravenous NAC. There was evidence of significant heterogeneity in NAC effect across studies (Q = 17.42, P = 0.04; I(2) = 48%). Meta-regression revealed no significant relation between the relative risk of CIN and identified differences in participant or study characteristics.ConclusionThis meta-analysis showed that research on intravenous N-acetylcysteine and the incidence of CIN is too inconsistent at present to warrant a conclusion on efficacy. A large, well designed trial that incorporates the evaluation of clinically relevant outcomes in participants with different underlying risks of CIN is required to more adequately assess the role for intravenous NAC in CIN prevention.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) is common in adolescents and young adults, and few evidence-based treatments are available for this significant problem. N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is a widely available nutritional supplement that has been studied in some psychiatric disorders relevant to NSSI including mood and addictive disorders. This pilot study tested the use of NAC as a potential treatment for NSSI in youth. METHODS:Thirty-five female adolescents and young adults with NSSI aged 13-21 years were enrolled in this study that had an open-label, single-arm study design. All participants were given oral NAC as follows: 600 mg twice daily (weeks 1-2), 1200 mg twice daily (weeks 3-4), and 1800 mg twice daily (weeks 5-8). Patients were seen every 2 weeks throughout the trial, at which time youth reported the frequency of NSSI episodes. Levels of depression, impulsivity, and global psychopathology were measured at baseline and at the end of the trial using the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), Barratt Impulsivity Scale, and Symptoms Checklist-90 (SCL-90). RESULTS:About two-thirds of the enrolled female youth completed the trial (24/35). NAC was generally well tolerated in this sample. NAC treatment was associated with a significant decrease in NSSI frequency at visit 6 and visit 8 compared to baseline. We also found that depression scores and global psychopathology scores (but not impulsivity scores) decreased after NAC treatment. Decrease in NSSI was not correlated with decrease in BDI-II or SCL-90 scores, suggesting these might be independent effects. CONCLUSION:We provide preliminary evidence that NAC may have promise as a potential treatment option for adolescents with NSSI. The current results require follow-up with a randomized, placebo-controlled trial to confirm efficacy.
Project description:It is acknowledged that contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is a common cause of acute renal insufficiency after cardiac catheterization and affects mortality and morbidity. To date, it is unknown whether oral N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is able to prevent contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) in patients undergoing coronary angioplasty. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed to assess the effects of NAC in the prevention of CIN in patients following coronary angioplasty. A total of 19 studies published prior to January 2015 that investigated the efficacy of oral NAC for the prevention of CIN were collected from Medline, Cochrane and Embase databases and conference proceedings from cardiology and nephrology meetings. The primary point of investigation was CIN, and the secondary points were renal failure requiring dialysis, mortality and length of hospitalization. The meta-analysis was performed using fixed- or random-effect models according to heterogeneity. Up to January 2015, 19 randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis, including 4,514 patients. The pooled data showed that oral NAC did not reduce the CIN incidence [relative risk 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65-1.10; P=0.20], without heterogeneity among trials (I2=29%). Thus, the present meta-analysis suggests that oral NAC therapy is not effective as an alternative treatment to prevent CIN in patients following angioplasty. Further high quality randomized clinical controlled trials are required to confirm the usage and availability of this treatment.
Project description:BackgroundPatients admitted to the emergency room with renal impairment and undergoing a contrast computed tomography (CT) are at high risk of developing contrast nephropathy as emergency precludes sufficient hydration prior to contrast use. The value of an ultra-high dose of intravenous N-acetylcysteine in this setting is unknown.MethodsFrom 2008 to 2010, we randomized 120 consecutive patients admitted to the emergency room with an estimated clearance lower than 60 ml/min/1.73 m2 by MDRD (mean GFR 42 ml/min/1.73 m2) to either placebo or 6000 mg N-acetylcysteine iv one hour before contrast CT in addition to iv saline. Serum cystatin C and creatinine were measured one hour prior to and at day 2, 4 and 10 after contrast injection. Nephrotoxicity was defined either as 25% or 44 μmol/l increase in serum creatinine or cystatin C levels compared to baseline values.ResultsContrast nephrotoxicity occurred in 22% of patients who received placebo (13/58) and 27% of patients who received N-acetylcysteine (14/52, p = 0.66). Ultra-high dose intravenous N-acetylcysteine did not alter creatinine or cystatin C levels. No secondary effects were noted within the 2 groups during follow-up.ConclusionsAn ultra-high dose of intravenous N-acetylcysteine is ineffective at preventing nephrotoxicity in patients with renal impairment undergoing emergency contrast CT.Trial registrationThe study was registered as Clinical trial (NCT01467154).
Project description:Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is a major complication of imaging in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The publication of an academic randomized controlled trial (RCT; n = 83) reporting oral (N)-acetylcysteine (NAC) to reduce CIN led to > 70 clinical trials, 23 systematic reviews, and 2 large RCTs showing no benefit. However, no mechanistic studies were conducted to determine how NAC might work; proposed mechanisms included renal artery vasodilatation and antioxidant boosting. We evaluated the proposed mechanisms of NAC action in participants with healthy and diseased kidneys. Four substudies were performed. Two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, three-period crossover studies (n = 8) assessed the effect of oral and intravenous (i.v.) NAC in healthy kidneys in the presence/absence of iso-osmolar contrast (iodixanol). A third crossover study in patients with CKD stage III (CKD3) (n = 8) assessed the effect of oral and i.v. NAC without contrast. A three-arm randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel-group study, recruiting patients with CKD3 (n = 66) undergoing coronary angiography, assessed the effect of oral and i.v. NAC in the presence of contrast. We recorded systemic (blood pressure and heart rate) and renal (renal blood flow (RBF) and glomerular filtration rate (GFR)) hemodynamics, and antioxidant status, plus biomarkers of renal injury in patients with CKD3 undergoing angiography. Primary outcome for all studies was RBF over 8 hours after the start of i.v. NAC/placebo. NAC at doses used in previous trials of renal prophylaxis was essentially undetectable in plasma after oral administration. In healthy volunteers, i.v. NAC, but not oral NAC, increased blood pressure (mean area under the curve (AUC) mean arterial pressure (MAP): mean difference 29 h⋅mmHg, P = 0.019 vs. placebo), heart rate (28 h⋅bpm, P < 0.001), and RBF (714 h⋅mL/min, 8.0% increase, P = 0.006). Renal vasodilatation also occurred in the presence of contrast (RBF 917 h⋅mL/min, 12% increase, P = 0.005). In patients with CKD3 without contrast, only a rise in heart rate (34 h⋅bpm, P = 0.010) and RBF (288 h⋅mL/min, 6.0% increase, P = 0.001) occurred with i.v. NAC, with no significant effect on blood pressure (MAP rise 26 h⋅mmHg, P = 0.156). Oral NAC showed no effect. In patients with CKD3 receiving contrast, i.v. NAC increased blood pressure (MAP rise 52 h⋅mmHg, P = 0.008) but had no effect on RBF (151 h⋅mL/min, 3.0% increase, P = 0.470), GFR (29 h⋅mL/min/1.73m², P = 0.122), or markers of renal injury. Neither i.v. nor oral NAC affected plasma antioxidant status. We found oral NAC to be poorly absorbed and have no reno-protective effects. Intravenous, not oral, NAC caused renal artery vasodilatation in healthy volunteers but offered no protection to patients with CKD3 at risk of CIN. These findings emphasize the importance of mechanistic clinical studies before progressing to RCTs for novel interventions. Thousands were recruited to academic clinical trials without the necessary mechanistic studies being performed to confirm the approach had any chance of working.
Project description:BackgroundThe effectiveness of N-acetylcysteine (NAC) in treating contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) has been the subject of conflicting meta-analyses, but the strength of the evidence for these correlations between NAC use and CIN has not been measured overall.ObjectiveTo evaluate the data from randomized clinical studies (RCTs) that examined the relationships between NAC use and CIN in meta-analyses.MethodsBetween the creation of the database and April 2023, searches were made in PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science. N-acetylcysteine, contrast-induced nephropathy, or contrast-induced renal disease were among the search keywords used, along with terms including systematic review and meta-analysis. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews, version 2, which assigned grades of extremely low, low, moderate, or high quality to each meta-analysis's scientific quality, was used to evaluate each meta-analysis. The confidence of the evidence in meta-analyses of RCTs was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluations method, with evidence being rated as very low, low, moderate, or high.ResultsIn total, 493 records were screened; of those, 46 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, and 12 articles were selected for evidence synthesis as a result of the screening process. Based on the pooled data, which was graded as moderate-quality evidence, it can be concluded that NAC can decrease CIN (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.65-0.79, p < 0.00001) and blood levels of serum creatinine (MD -0.09, 95% CI -0.17 to -0.01, p = 0.03). In spite of this, there were no associations between NAC and dialysis requirement or mortality in these studies.ConclusionThe results of this umbrella review supported that the renal results were enhanced by NAC. The association was supported by moderate-quality evidence.Systematic review registration[https://clinicaltrials.gov/], identifier [CRD42022367811].
Project description:BackgroundAceltylcysteine has been evaluated in several small trials as a means of reducing the risk of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN), however systematic reviews of these studies do not provide conclusive answers. Therefore, a large randomized controlled trial (RCT) is needed to provide a reliable answer as to whether acetylcysteine is effective in decreasing the risk of CIN in high-risk patients undergoing angiographic procedures.MethodsACT is a RCT of acetylcysteine versus placebo in 2,300 patients at-risk for CIN undergoing an intravascular angiographic procedure. The randomization list will be concealed. Participants, health care staff, investigators and outcome assessors will be blinded to whether patients receive acetylcysteine or placebo. All analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle. The study drugs (acetylcysteine 1200 mg or placebo) will be administered orally twice daily for two doses before and two doses after the procedure. The primary outcome is the occurrence of CIN, defined as a 25% elevation of serum creatinine above baseline between 48 and 96 hours after angiography.DiscussionThe first patient entered the trial on September, 2008. Up to April 7, 2009, 810 patients had been included in 35 centers. The mean age was 69 (Standard deviation: 10), 18% had a baseline serum creatinine >1.5 mg/dL, 57% were diabetics and 13% had a history of heart failure. The ongoing ACT Trial is the largest multicentre RCT that will determine whether acetylcysteine is effective in decreasing the risk of CIN in patients at risk undergoing angiography.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT00736866.
Project description:Conflicting results have been obtained in trials that have evaluated the prophylactic efficacy of N-acetylcysteine (NAC) pretreatment in the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN). In this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, we aimed to assess the effectiveness of NAC treatment for the prevention of CIN. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were electronically searched from inception to January 2016 for all relevant studies. The weighted relative risk (RR) and corresponding 95% CI for incident CIN were estimated using random effects models. Standard methods for assessing statistical heterogeneity and publication bias were used. The study included 11 480 participants and 1653 cases of CIN. The incidence of CIN was 12.8% in the NAC group versus 16.0% in the control group (RR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.66-0.88, P=0.0002). In the patients undergoing coronary angiography, the incidence of CIN in the NAC group versus the control group was 13.7% versus 17.2% (RR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.63-0.87, P=0.0002); in those undergoing peripheral angiography, the incidence was 6.4% versus 5.8% (RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.42-2.40, P=1.00); in those undergoing computed tomography, the incidence was 7.7% versus 14.8% (RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.29-0.89, P=0.02). Our meta-analysis showed an inverse and significant association between NAC supplementation and risk of CIN in patients undergoing coronary angiography and computed tomography, while a protective role for NAC in patients undergoing peripheral angiography was not obvious.
