Advertisment
Indian Journal of Nephrology About us |  Subscription |  e-Alerts  | Feedback | Login   
  Print this page Email this page   Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 Home | Current Issue | Archives| Ahead of print | Search |Instructions |  Editorial Board  

Users Online:1517

Official publication of the Indian Society of Nephrology
 ~   Next article
 ~   Previous article
 ~   Table of Contents

 ~   Similar in PUBMED
 ~  Search Pubmed for
 ~  Search in Google Scholar for
 ~Related articles
 ~   Citation Manager
 ~   Access Statistics
 ~   Reader Comments
 ~   Email Alert *
 ~   Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed472    
    Printed12    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded33    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 

 ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 30  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 403-408

Comparison of oral and intravenous N-acetyl cysteine in preventing contrast nephropathy


1 Nephrology Research Center, Imam Khomeini Hospital, Keshavarz Blvd, Tehran, Iran
2 Tehran Herat Center, North Karegar Ave, Tehran, Iran

Correspondence Address:
Prof. Mohammad Reza Khatami
Nephrology Research Center, Imam Khomeini hospital, Keshavarz Blvd, Tehran
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijn.IJN_260_19

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: Despite high rates of morbidity and mortality in patients with contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN), there is no consensus regarding prevention of this well-known complication of contrast media use. One agent that has been widely used in this regard is N-acetyl cysteine (NAC). Nevertheless, its efficacy is still controversial. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of NAC, both in the oral and intravenous forms, for the prevention of CIN. Methods: This study is a double-blind randomized placebo controlled clinical trial. We randomized 434 adult patients with chronic kidney disease (constant serum creatinine ≥1.5 mg/dL) who were candidates for coronary angiography/plasty. The patients were categorized into three groups. One group received 1,200 mg NAC intravenously half an hour before the procedure and oral placebo starting 3 days before angiography. The second group received oral NAC 600 mg twice daily for 3 days, starting the day before the intervention and intravenous placebo half an hour before intervention. The third group received both oral and intravenous placebo. CIN was defined as a 25% relative increase in serum creatinine from baseline value, 48 h after use of contrast medium. Results: Of the 434 patients, 149 received intravenous NAC, 145 received oral NAC, and the remaining 140 received placebo. The incidence of CIN in the three groups was 6.1%, 7.6%, and 10.8%, respectively (p = 0.34). Conclusion: In patients with chronic kidney disease, neither intravenous nor oral NAC is superior to placebo for preventing CIN.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*


        
Print this article     Email this article

Indian Journal of Nephrology
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
Online since 20th Sept '07