Home > DARE Reviews > Meta-analysis: effectiveness of drugs...
  • We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet]. York (UK): Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK); 1995-.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet].

Meta-analysis: effectiveness of drugs for preventing contrast-induced nephropathy

Review published: 2008.

Bibliographic details: Kelly A M, Dwamena B, Cronin P, Bernstein S J, Carlos R C.  Meta-analysis: effectiveness of drugs for preventing contrast-induced nephropathy. Annals of Internal Medicine 2008; 148(4): 284-294. [PubMed: 18283206]

Quality assessment

The authors concluded that N-acetylcysteine was more renoprotective than hydration alone for reducing risk of contrast-induced nephropathy; theophylline may also reduce risk. In spite of some methodological issues with the review, the authors' conclusions were still likely to be reliable. Full critical summary


BACKGROUND: N-Acetylcysteine, theophylline, and other agents have shown inconsistent results in reducing contrast-induced nephropathy.

PURPOSE: To determine the effect of these agents on preventing nephropathy.

DATA SOURCES: Relevant randomized, controlled trials were identified by computerized searches in MEDLINE (from 1966 through 3 November 2006), EMBASE (1980 through November 2006), PubMed, Web of Knowledge (Current Contents Connect, Web of Science, BIOSIS Previews, and ISI Proceedings for the latest 5 years), and the Cochrane Library databases (up to November 2006). Databases were searched for studies in English, Spanish, French, Italian, and German.

STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled trials that administered N-acetylcysteine, theophylline, fenoldopam, dopamine, iloprost, statin, furosemide, or mannitol to a treatment group; used intravenous iodinated contrast; defined contrast-induced nephropathy explicitly; and reported sufficient data to construct a 2 x 2 table of the primary effect measure.

DATA EXTRACTION: Abstracted information included patient characteristics, type of contrast media and dose, periprocedural hydration, definition of contrast-induced nephropathy, and prophylactic agent dose and route.

DATA SYNTHESIS: In the 41 studies included, N-acetylcysteine (relative risk, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.88]) and theophylline (relative risk, 0.49 [CI, 0.23 to 1.06]) reduced the risk for contrast-induced nephropathy more than saline alone, whereas furosemide increased it (relative risk, 3.27 [CI, 1.48 to 7.26]). The remaining agents did not significantly affect risk. Significant subgroup heterogeneity was present only for N-acetylcysteine. No publication bias was discerned.

LIMITATIONS: All trials evaluated the surrogate end point of contrast-induced nephropathy as the primary outcome. The lack of a statistically significant renoprotective effect of theophylline may result from insufficient data or study heterogeneity. True study quality remains uncertain.

CONCLUSION: N-acetylcysteine is more renoprotective than hydration alone. Theophylline may also reduce risk for contrast-induced nephropathy, although the detected association was not significant. Our data support the administration of N-acetylcysteine prophylaxis, particularly in high-risk patients, given its low cost, availability, and few side effects.

CRD has determined that this article meets the DARE scientific quality criteria for a systematic review.

Copyright © 2013 University of York.

PubMed Health Blog...

read all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...