COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT AGENTS ON RADIOGRAPHIC CONTRAST AGENT INDUCED NEPHROPATHY

Adenosine antagonists for prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis

Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is caused by intravascular administration of contrast agent. The efficacy of adenosine antagonists (AAs) in preventing CIN remains controversial, and its elucidation was the objective of the present meta-analysis. A trial sequential analysis (TSA) to assess the reliability of the pooled results was also performed. The Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane databases were searched to retrieve all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing AAs with controls in preventing CIN. Heterogeneity, publication bias and quality of studies were assessed. Sensitivity, cumulative and subgroup analyses were also performed. The risk of random errors was evaluated by TSA. A total of 17 trials with 1,483 subjects were included. Pooled results indicated that AAs significantly reduced the incidence of CIN [risk ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.29-0.95; P=0.034] and the serum creatinine (SCr) level after contrast media (CM) administration (standardized mean difference, -0.24; 95% CI, -0.44 to -0.04; P=0.019). Meta-regression did not identify any significant source of heterogeneity. In the subgroup analyses, AAs tended to exhibit a greater prevention efficacy in trials with sample sizes of ≥70, baseline SCr of <1.5 mg/dl and low study quality. TSA on the incidence of CIN indicated that the required information size determined as n=1,778 was not reached, and that the cumulative Z-curve did not cross the TSA boundary. In conclusion, the present meta-analysis of data from current RCTs suggested that AAs reduce the incidence of CIN and the SCr levels after CM administration. However, TSA showed that the risk of having a false-positive result was greater than 5% in the meta-analysis of the incidence of CIN, indicating that more evidence is required to ensure the benefit of AAs in preventing CIN.

An experimental study on the preventive effects of N-acetyl cysteine and ozone treatment against contrast-induced nephropathy

PURPOSE

To compare the preventive effects of N-acetyl cysteine (NAC), ozone preconditioning and ozone treatment against contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) in an experimental rat model.

METHODS

Thirty adult male Wistar rats were randomly distributed into five groups (n=6 for each group). Group I served as control and Group II had only contrast agent, while Group III received NAC and Group IV received intraperitoneal ozone 6 hours before and 6 hours after introduction of contrast agent. Ozone treatment was applied for 5 days after the contrast agent was introduced in Group V. After induction of CIN, groups were compared in terms of serum levels of urea, creatinine, neutrophil gelatinase associated lipocalin, protein carbonyl, total antioxidant capacity (TAC) as well as degree of renal injury at histopathologic level.

RESULTS

Groups II-V displayed more obvious histopathological alterations such as hemorrhage and renal tubular injury compared with Group I. TAC (p=0.043) and creatinine (p=0.046) levels increased significantly in Group II after the intervention. In Group III, protein carbonyl level diminished remarkably (p=0.046), while creatinine level was increased (p=0.046) following the intervention. TAC level was higher in Group IV (p=0.028) and Group V (p=0.026) following the procedure.

CONCLUSION

The N-acetyl cysteine and ozone treatment may alleviate the biochemical and histopathological deleterious effects of contrast-induced nephropathy via enhancement of total antioxidant capacity and decreasing oxidative stress.

Effectiveness of N-Acetylcysteine for the Prevention of Contrast-Induced Nephropathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

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.

Methods and Results

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).

Conclusions

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.