Arabmomeni Morteza, Najafian Jamshid, Abdar Esfahani Morteza, Samadi Mohsen, Mirbagher Leila
Cardiologist, Department of Cardiology, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Isfahan Cardiovascular Research Center, Isfahan Cardiovascular Research Institute, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
ARYA Atheroscler. 2015 Jan;11(1):43-9.
Few 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.
This 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.
Serum 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).
Theophylline 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.
很少有研究比较氨茶碱与N-乙酰半胱氨酸的疗效,或评估联合治疗预防造影剂肾病(CIN)的疗效。我们比较了氨茶碱、N-乙酰半胱氨酸以及这两种药物联合使用在预防CIN方面的疗效。
这项随机对照试验对96例连续转诊至伊朗伊斯法罕沙希德·查姆兰大学医院进行择期冠状动脉造影(无论是否进行血管成形术)的患者进行。纳入至少有中度CIN风险的患者,并随机分为接受氨茶碱(200毫克)、N-乙酰半胱氨酸(600毫克)或氨茶碱+N-乙酰半胱氨酸治疗组,在注射造影剂前24小时至注射后48小时,每天两次。使用非离子型、低渗造影剂。在注射造影剂前和注射后48小时测量血清肌酐。
注射造影剂后,氨茶碱组血清肌酐升高6.83±15.32%,N-乙酰半胱氨酸组升高13.09±14.63%,氨茶碱+N-乙酰半胱氨酸组升高5.45±13.96%(组间P = 0.072)。在控制梅兰风险评分、基线血清肌酐和造影剂用量后,与N-乙酰半胱氨酸相比,氨茶碱组血清肌酐水平变化更低(F = 4.79,P = 0.033);与N-乙酰半胱氨酸相比,氨茶碱+N-乙酰半胱氨酸组血清肌酐水平变化更低(F = 5.78,P = 0.020)。氨茶碱组、N-乙酰半胱氨酸组和氨茶碱+N-乙酰半胱氨酸组CIN(肌酐升高≥0.5毫克/分升或较基线升高≥25%)的发生率分别为20%、21.9%和7.1%(P = 0.260)。
在预防造影剂所致肾功能不全方面,氨茶碱优于N-乙酰半胱氨酸,但在这方面,与N-乙酰半胱氨酸联合使用并不优于单独使用氨茶碱。有必要进行更大样本量患者的进一步试验。