Sodium Bicarbonate Plus N-Acetylcysteine Prophylaxis A Meta-Analysis

The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA.
JACC. Cardiovascular Interventions (Impact Factor: 7.35). 11/2009; 2(11):1116-24. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2009.07.015
Source: PubMed


We sought to conduct a meta-analysis to compare N-acetylcysteine (NAC) in combination with sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO(3)) for the prevention of contrast-induced acute kidney injury (AKI).
Contrast-induced AKI is a serious consequence of cardiac catheterizations and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Despite recent supporting evidence for combination therapy, not enough has been done to prevent the occurrence of contrast-induced AKI prophylactically.
Published randomized controlled trial data were collected from OVID/PubMed, Web of Science, and conference abstracts. The outcome of interest was contrast-induced AKI, defined as a >or=25% or >or=0.5 mg/dl increase in serum creatinine from baseline. Secondary outcome was renal failure requiring dialysis.
Ten randomized controlled trials met our criteria. Combination treatment of NAC with intravenous NaHCO(3) reduced contrast-induced AKI by 35% (relative risk: 0.65; 95% confidence interval: 0.40 to 1.05). However, the combination of N-acetylcysteine plus NaHCO(3) did not significantly reduce renal failure requiring dialysis (relative risk: 0.47; 95% confidence interval: 0.16 to 1.41).
Combination prophylaxis with NAC and NaHCO(3) substantially reduced the occurrence of contrast-induced AKI overall but not dialysis-dependent renal failure. Combination prophylaxis should be incorporated for all high-risk patients (emergent cases or patients with chronic kidney disease) and should be strongly considered for all interventional radio-contrast procedures.

1 Follower
27 Reads
  • Source
    • "Patients with previously known or suspected renal function impairment underwent a CT scan without contrast enhancement. Each patient received intravenous N-acetylcysteine and sodium bicarbonate to reduce contrast-induced nephropathy (8). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: The aim of this study was to describe our early experience in the treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms with bifurcated endografts. We report on our initial twelve-month experience using this approach. Methods: Clinical data on patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms treated at a single tertiary center in Brazil were prospectively recorded. The eligibility for endovascular treatment was evaluated by computed tomography scanning and anatomical features were determined based on the method of treatment. Results: From February 2012 to January 2013 (12 months), 28 consecutive patients (mean age 67.2 years, range 45-85 years) underwent treatment for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms at our hospital. Eighteen patients (64.3%) were suitable for and underwent endovascular treatment with bifurcated endografts (16 patients) or aortouniiliac endografts (two patients). Ten patients who were considered unsuitable for endograft repair underwent open repair. Seven patients were classified as hemodynamically unstable (Endovascular, 5; Open, 2), and 21 were classified as stable (Endovascular, 13; Open, 8). The overall 30-day mortality rate associated with endovascular treatment was 27.8% (stable, 18.7%; unstable, 40%) and the rate associated with open repair was 50% (stable, 37.5%; unstable, 100%). Conclusions: In this study, the suitability of patients for endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms was high and the overall results of endovascular treatment remain encouraging. Indeed, bifurcated endografts are a feasible option for treating anatomically eligible ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms.
    Clinics (São Paulo, Brazil) 06/2014; 69(6):420-425. · 1.19 Impact Factor
  • Source
    JACC. Cardiovascular Interventions 11/2009; 2(11):1125-7. DOI:10.1016/j.jcin.2009.08.019 · 7.35 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We compare real-world, extended target vessel revascularization (TVR)-free survival following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients receiving either sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) or paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) following an index drug-eluting stent (DES) supported procedure. We analyzed 2,363 consecutive patients having first DES-supported PCI at receiving PES (n = 1,012) or SES (n = 1,332) from April 2004 to July 2006. Baseline clinical and procedural characteristics and in-hospital outcomes were recorded during the time of the index procedure and extended clinical outcomes data were obtained thereafter. TVR and all cause mortality were identified during the study period. Adjusted Kaplan-Meier and Cox's proportional hazard survival methods were performed. TVR-free survival at 2.3 years was 91.3% for SES compared with 88.9% for PES (P = 0.06). Kaplan-Meier survival curves did not significantly differ (adjusted hazard ratio −1.39 [95% CI 0.99–1.97]) between the SES and PES patient cohorts. TVR was similar between the stent platforms at one (96.6% for SES [95% CI 95.3–97.6] vs. 95.7% for PES [95% CI 94.1–96.9]) and two (95.0%[95% CI 93.0–96.4] for SES vs. 93.7% for PES [95% CI 91.6–95.3]) years. Overall survival at 2 years was 96.2% for SES (95% CI 94.7–97.3) and 95.3% for PES (95% CI 93.7–96.5). SES and PES drug-eluting stent platforms have good and similar extended outcomes in this real world registry of unselected patients having PCI. (J Interven Cardiol 2010;23:167-175)
    Journal of Interventional Cardiology 03/2010; 23(2):167 - 175. DOI:10.1111/j.1540-8183.2010.00537.x · 1.18 Impact Factor
Show more


27 Reads
Available from