scholarly journals Association between antihypertensive treatment and adverse events: systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. n189
Author(s):  
Ali Albasri ◽  
Miriam Hattle ◽  
Constantinos Koshiaris ◽  
Anna Dunnigan ◽  
Ben Paxton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Kidney Injury ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Antihypertensive Treatment ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Antihypertensive Drugs ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Kidney Injury ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Objective To examine the association between antihypertensive treatment and specific adverse events. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Eligibility criteria Randomised controlled trials of adults receiving antihypertensives compared with placebo or no treatment, more antihypertensive drugs compared with fewer antihypertensive drugs, or higher blood pressure targets compared with lower targets. To avoid small early phase trials, studies were required to have at least 650 patient years of follow-up. Information sources Searches were conducted in Embase, Medline, CENTRAL, and the Science Citation Index databases from inception until 14 April 2020. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was falls during trial follow-up. Secondary outcomes were acute kidney injury, fractures, gout, hyperkalaemia, hypokalaemia, hypotension, and syncope. Additional outcomes related to death and major cardiovascular events were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and random effects meta-analysis was used to pool rate ratios, odds ratios, and hazard ratios across studies, allowing for between study heterogeneity (τ 2 ). Results Of 15 023 articles screened for inclusion, 58 randomised controlled trials were identified, including 280 638 participants followed up for a median of 3 (interquartile range 2-4) years. Most of the trials (n=40, 69%) had a low risk of bias. Among seven trials reporting data for falls, no evidence was found of an association with antihypertensive treatment (summary risk ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.24, τ 2 =0.009). Antihypertensives were associated with an increased risk of acute kidney injury (1.18, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.39, τ 2 =0.037, n=15), hyperkalaemia (1.89, 1.56 to 2.30, τ 2 =0.122, n=26), hypotension (1.97, 1.67 to 2.32, τ 2 =0.132, n=35), and syncope (1.28, 1.03 to 1.59, τ 2 =0.050, n=16). The heterogeneity between studies assessing acute kidney injury and hyperkalaemia events was reduced when focusing on drugs that affect the renin angiotensin-aldosterone system. Results were robust to sensitivity analyses focusing on adverse events leading to withdrawal from each trial. Antihypertensive treatment was associated with a reduced risk of all cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and stroke, but not of myocardial infarction. Conclusions This meta-analysis found no evidence to suggest that antihypertensive treatment is associated with falls but found evidence of an association with mild (hyperkalaemia, hypotension) and severe adverse events (acute kidney injury, syncope). These data could be used to inform shared decision making between doctors and patients about initiation and continuation of antihypertensive treatment, especially in patients at high risk of harm because of previous adverse events or poor renal function. Registration PROSPERO CRD42018116860.

scholarly journals Surgical interventions for women with stress urinary incontinence: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BMJ ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. l1842 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mari Imamura ◽  
Jemma Hudson ◽  
Sheila A Wallace ◽  
Graeme MacLennan ◽  
Michal Shimonovich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Urinary Incontinence ◽  
Stress Urinary Incontinence ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Surgical Interventions ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Objectives To compare the effectiveness and safety of surgical interventions for women with stress urinary incontinence. Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials evaluating surgical interventions for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women. Methods Identification of relevant randomised controlled trials from Cochrane reviews and the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register (searched May 2017), which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Medline In-Process, Medline Epub Ahead of Print, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP. The reference lists of relevant articles were also searched. Primary outcomes were “cure” and “improvement” at 12 months, analysed by means of network meta-analyses, with results presented as the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Adverse events were analysed using pairwise meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The quality of evidence for network meta-analysis was assessed using the GRADE approach. Results 175 randomised controlled trials assessing a total of 21 598 women were included. Most studies had high or unclear risk across all risk of bias domains. Network meta-analyses were based on data from 105 trials that reported cure and 120 trials that reported improvement of incontinence symptoms. Results showed that the interventions with highest cure rates were traditional sling, retropubic midurethral sling (MUS), open colposuspension, and transobturator MUS, with rankings of 89.4%, 89.1%, 76.7%, and 64.1%, respectively. Compared with retropubic MUS, the odds ratio of cure for traditional sling was 1.06 (95% credible interval 0.62 to 1.85), for open colposuspension was 0.85 (0.54 to 1.33), and for transobtrurator MUS was 0.74 (0.59 to 0.92). Women were also more likely to experience an improvement in their incontinence symptoms after receiving retropubic MUS or transobturator MUS compared with other surgical procedures. In particular, compared with retropubic MUS, the odds ratio of improvement for transobturator MUS was 0.76 (95% credible interval 0.59 to 0.98), for traditional sling was 0.69 (0.39 to 1.26), and for open colposuspension was 0.65 (0.41 to 1.02). Quality of evidence was moderate for retropubic MUS versus transobturator MUS and low or very low for retropubic MUS versus the other two interventions. Data on adverse events were available mainly for mesh procedures, indicating a higher rate of repeat surgery and groin pain but a lower rate of suprapubic pain, vascular complications, bladder or urethral perforation, and voiding difficulties after transobturator MUS compared with retropubic MUS. Data on adverse events for non-MUS procedures were sparse and showed wide confidence intervals. Long term data were limited. Conclusions Retropubic MUS, transobturator MUS, traditional sling, and open colposuspension are more effective than other procedures for stress urinary incontinence in the short to medium term. Data on long term effectiveness and adverse events are, however, limited, especially around the comparative adverse events profiles of MUS and non-MUS procedures. A better understanding of complications after surgery for stress urinary incontinence is imperative. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42016049339.

P332Comparative efficacy of intracoronary agents for acute treatment of coronary no-reflow: a network meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Stibleichinger ◽  
J Wendt ◽  
F Hofbauer ◽  
G Klappacher
Keyword(s):  
Coronary Flow ◽  
Acute Treatment ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
No Reflow ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Coronary no-reflow is a potentially lethal complication of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There is a growing body of evidence on how to best prevent this condition by the proper stenting technique and other mechanical measures or adjunctive drug treatments. However, it is still controversial how to tackle coronary no-reflow when it occurs. Purpose We aimed to compare and rank intracoronary agents for acute treatment of coronary no-reflow by considering both indirect and direct evidence from the literature in a network meta-analysis. Methods We searched the databases PubMed, Embase and Central for randomised controlled trials of the acute treatment of coronary no-reflow following primary PCI in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-STEMI. Trials with patients suffering from stable angina and/or receiving elective PCI, observational study design and no measure of coronary flow were excluded. Two blinded reviewers independently collected studies, assessed risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool and extracted data. The primary outcome was a measure of coronary flow immediately following the intervention (TIMI flow grade, TIMI frame count or myocardial bush grade), secondary outcome were major adverse cardiovascular events during follow-up. Pairwise and network meta-analysis were performed using the random-effects model within a frequentist framework. Results 8 studies with a total of 540 participants were identified, including 4 multi-arm studies. This enabled 19 pairwise comparisons of 12 different treatments, all administered via intracoronary route (ADE=adenosine, DIL=diltiazem, DIP=dipyridamole, NIT= nitroglycerin, NPR=nitroprusside, PLA=placebo, TIR=tirofiban, U+V=urokinase combined with verapamil, URA=urapidil, URO=urokinase, VER=verapamil X+T= Xuesaitong combined with tirofiban). Overall, risk of bias in these studies was rated moderate. For graphical representation of the network for the primary outcome, see left panel of the figure. It exhibited a low level of inconsistency and heterogeneity with a global I2 value of 20.9%. Among the different treatments, URA, X+T, and TIR were more effective in re-establishing coronary flow with the caveat that the results of URA depended on one singular trail with a large variance, see right panel of the figure. NIT was even slightly worse than placebo in the primary outcome, the other agents were equivalent with placebo. In terms of major cardiovascular events during follow-up, TIR exhibited a protective effect compared with placebo at borderline statistical significance (OR 0.3843 [95% CI 0.1488; 0.9923]. For URA, data on secondary outcome were not available. Conclusions Urapidil and Tirofiban are potentially effective candidate drugs for larger randomised controlled trials, which are needed to validate the sparse evidence that is available to date on the acute treatment of coronary no-reflow.

scholarly journals Comparative Effectiveness of Pharmacological Interventions for Covid-19: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Franco De Crescenzo ◽  
Laura Amato ◽  
Fabio Cruciani ◽  
Luke P Moynihan ◽  
Gian Loreto D’Alò ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Pharmacological Intervention ◽  
Pharmacological Interventions ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background: Several pharmacological interventions are now under investigation for the treatment of Covid-19, and the evidence is evolving rapidly. Our aim is to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of these drugs.Methods and Findings: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We included 96 RCTs, comprising of 34,501 patients. The network meta-analysis showed in terms of all-cause mortality, when compared to SC or placebo, only corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate (RR 0.90, 95%CI 0.83, 0.97; moderate certainty of evidence). Corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate also when compared to hydroxychloroquine (RR 0.83, 95%CI 0.74, 0.94; moderate certainty of evidence). Remdesivir proved to be better in terms of SAEs when compared to SC or placebo (RR 0.75, 95%CI 0.63, 0.89; high certainty of evidence) and plasma (RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.34, 0.94; high certainty of evidence). The combination of lopinavir and ritonavir proved to reduce SAEs when compared to plasma (RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.25, 0.95; high certainty of evidence). Most of the RCTs were at unclear risk of bias (42 of 96), one third were at high risk of bias (34 of 96) and 20 were at low risk of bias. Certainty of evidence ranged from high to very low.Conclusion: At present, corticosteroids reduced all-cause mortality in patients with Covid-19, with a moderate certainty of evidence. Remdesivir appeared to be a safer option than SC or placebo, while plasma was associated with safety concerns. These preliminary evidence-based observations should guide clinical practice until more data are made public.

scholarly journals Pharmacological interventions for the prevention of contrast-induced acute kidney injury in high-risk adult patients undergoing coronary angiography: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Open Heart ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. e000864 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander J Sharp ◽  
Nishith Patel ◽  
Barney C Reeves ◽  
Gianni D Angelini ◽  
Francesca Fiorentino
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Acute Kidney Injury ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Coronary Angiography ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Kidney Injury ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveQuantify the efficacy of strategies to prevent contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI) in high-risk patients undergoing coronary angiography (CAG) with or without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).BackgroundCI-AKI remains a common problem. The renoprotective efficacy of existing pharmacological agents remains uncertain in high-risk populations.MethodsSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to compare different strategies versus hydration in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) undergoing CAG±PCI. Primary outcome was incident CI-AKI. Fixed-effects meta-analyses estimated ORs, 95% CIs and heterogeneity.ResultsForty-eight RCTs were included. Seven pharmacological strategies were evaluated by multiple RCTs and 10 by one RCT each. These had varying risk of bias; >25% of trials were at high risk of performance bias. Five strategies significantly reduced the odds of CI-AKI: N-acetylcysteine (NAC) (27 trials, 5694 participants; OR=0.77, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.91, p=0.002, I2=36%), ascorbic acid (four trials, 759 participants; OR=0.59, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.89, p=0.01, I2=0%), statin (two trials, 3234 participants; OR=0.59, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.89, p=0.75, I2=0%), trimetazidine (two trials, 214 participants; OR=0.27, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.71, p=0.01, I2=0%) and nicorandil (two trials, 389 participants; OR=0.47, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.94, p=0.03, I2=52%). Theophylline had a similar, but non-significant, effect. A subgroup analysis found that the benefit of NAC was highest in patients requiring a high-contrast dose.ConclusionsSeveral drugs are renoprotective in patients with CKD undergoing CAG±PCI. The evidence is strongest for NAC. We recommend that NAC should be used when a high dose of contrast is anticipated.Trial registration numberPROSPERO registration CRD42014014704.Open Science Framework link: https://osf.io/vxg7d/?view_only=62bad0404b18405abd39ff2ead2575a8

scholarly journals Which treatment is most effective for patients with Achilles tendinopathy? A living systematic review with network meta-analysis of 29 randomised controlled trials

2020 ◽  
pp. bjsports-2019-101872 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arco C van der Vlist ◽  
Marinus Winters ◽  
Adam Weir ◽  
Clare L Ardern ◽  
Nicky J Welton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Exercise Therapy ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Achilles Tendinopathy ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Wait And See ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveTo provide a consistently updated overview of the comparative effectiveness of treatments for Achilles tendinopathy.DesignLiving systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesMultiple databases including grey literature sources were searched up to February 2019.Study eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials examining the effectiveness of any treatment in patients with both insertional and/or midportion Achilles tendinopathy. We excluded trials with 10 or fewer participants per treatment arm or trials investigating tendon ruptures.Data extraction and synthesisReviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to appraise the certainty of evidence.Primary outcome measureThe validated patient-reported Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Achilles questionnaire.Results29 trials investigating 42 different treatments were included. 22 trials (76%) were at high risk of bias and 7 (24%) had some concerns. Most trials included patients with midportion tendinopathy (86%). Any treatment class seemed superior to wait-and-see for midportion Achilles tendinopathy at 3 months (very low to low certainty of evidence). At 12 months, exercise therapy, exercise+injection therapy and exercise+night splint therapy were all comparable with injection therapy for midportion tendinopathy (very low to low certainty). No network meta-analysis could be performed for insertional Achilles tendinopathy.Summary/conclusionIn our living network meta-analysis no trials were at low risk of bias and there was large uncertainty in the comparative estimates. For midportion Achilles tendinopathy, wait-and-see is not recommended as all active treatments seemed superior at 3-month follow-up. There seems to be no clinically relevant difference in effectiveness between different active treatments at either 3-month or 12-month follow-up. As exercise therapy is easy to prescribe, can be of low cost and has few harms, clinicians could consider starting treatment with a calf-muscle exercise programme.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018086467.

scholarly journals The effects of step-count monitoring interventions on physical activity: systematic review and meta-analysis of community-based randomised controlled trials in adults

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Umar A. R. Chaudhry ◽  
Charlotte Wahlich ◽  
Rebecca Fortescue ◽  
Derek G. Cook ◽  
Rachel Knightly ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Inactivity ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Step Count ◽  
Smartphone Applications ◽  
End Point ◽  
Meta Regression ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Step-count monitors (pedometers, body-worn trackers and smartphone applications) can increase walking, helping to tackle physical inactivity. We aimed to assess the effect of step-count monitors on physical activity (PA) in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) amongst community-dwelling adults; including longer-term effects, differences between step-count monitors, and between intervention components. Methods Systematic literature searches in seven databases identified RCTs in healthy adults, or those at risk of disease, published between January 2000–April 2020. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Outcome was mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) in steps at follow-up between treatment and control groups. Our preferred outcome measure was from studies with follow-up steps adjusted for baseline steps (change studies); but we also included studies reporting follow-up differences only (end-point studies). Multivariate-meta-analysis used random-effect estimates at different time-points for change studies only. Meta-regression compared effects of different step-count monitors and intervention components amongst all studies at ≤4 months. Results Of 12,491 records identified, 70 RCTs (at generally low risk of bias) were included, with 57 trials (16,355 participants) included in meta-analyses: 32 provided change from baseline data; 25 provided end-point only. Multivariate meta-analysis of the 32 change studies demonstrated step-counts favoured intervention groups: MD of 1126 steps/day 95%CI [787, 1466] at ≤4 months, 1050 steps/day [602, 1498] at 6 months, 464 steps/day [301, 626] at 1 year, 121 steps/day [− 64, 306] at 2 years and 434 steps/day [191, 676] at 3–4 years. Meta-regression of the 57 trials at ≤4 months demonstrated in mutually-adjusted analyses that: end-point were similar to change studies (+ 257 steps/day [− 417, 931]); body-worn trackers/smartphone applications were less effective than pedometers (− 834 steps/day [− 1542, − 126]); and interventions providing additional counselling/incentives were not better than those without (− 812 steps/day [− 1503, − 122]). Conclusions Step-count monitoring leads to short and long-term step-count increases, with no evidence that either body-worn trackers/smartphone applications, or additional counselling/incentives offer further benefit over simpler pedometer-based interventions. Simple step-count monitoring interventions should be prioritised to address the public health physical inactivity challenge. Systematic review registration PROSPERO number CRD42017075810.

scholarly journals Timing of renal replacement therapy for patients with acute kidney injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. 175114372090168
Author(s):  
Mark Andonovic ◽  
Richard Shemilt ◽  
Malcolm Sim ◽  
Jamie P Traynor ◽  
Martin Shaw ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Acute Kidney Injury ◽  
Renal Replacement Therapy ◽  
Replacement Therapy ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Kidney Injury ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background Acute kidney injury is associated with high mortality, and the optimal time to start renal replacement therapy for acute kidney injury is unknown despite several randomised controlled trials on the subject. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effect of earlier initiation of renal replacement therapy for acute kidney injury on mortality and reported secondary outcomes. Methods All literature in databases EMBASE, MEDLINE and CENTRAL was searched from January 1970 to March 2019 using terms related to renal replacement therapy, timing and randomised controlled trials. All randomised controlled trials with 25 or more adult participants suffering from acute kidney injury comparing timing of renal replacement therapy were included. The results of the selected studies were pooled and expressed in terms of risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) using a random effects model. Results A total of 7008 records were identified; 94 were selected for full text review of which 10 were included in the final meta-analysis. The 10 studies comprised 1956 participants (989 ‘early’ group; 967 ‘late’ group) with 918 total deaths; the analysis demonstrated no significant differences between the ‘early’ and ‘late’ renal replacement therapy groups (RR = 0.98 (95% CI = 0.84, 1.15)) for mortality. No significant differences between groups were evident for period-wise mortality; dialysis dependence; recovery of renal function; length of intensive care unit or hospital stay; or number of renal replacement therapies, mechanical ventilation and vasopressor-free days. Conclusions Current evidence does not support the use of early renal replacement therapy for patients with acute kidney injury. Data from ongoing and future randomised controlled trials are required to strengthen the evidence base in the area.

scholarly journals Effect of N-acetylcysteine on prevention of contrast-associated acute kidney injury in patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e039009
Author(s):  
Zhaodong Guo ◽  
Jin Liu ◽  
Li Lei ◽  
Yan Xue ◽  
Liwei Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Acute Kidney Injury ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Kidney Injury ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveSeveral studies evaluating the preventive effect of N-acetylcysteine (NAC) on contrast-associated acute kidney injury (CA-AKI) among patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) have suggested inconsistent results and that a systematic review and meta-analysis should be performed.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Central databases were searched from inception to 15 November 2019.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials assessing use of NAC compared with non-use of NAC (eg, placebo) in preventing CA-AKI in patients with STEMI following PPCI were included.Data synthesisRelative risks with 95% CIs were pooled using a random-effects model. Evidence level of conclusions was assessed by Cochrane GRADE measure.ResultsSeven trials including 1710 patients were identified. Compared with non-use of NAC, use of NAC significantly reduced the incidence of CA-AKI by 49% (risk ratio (RR) 0.51, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.82, p<0.01) and all-cause in-hospital mortality by 63% (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.79, p=0.01). The estimated effects on the requirement for dialysis (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.38, p=0.24) were not statistically significant. Trial sequential analysis confirmed the true positive of NAC in reducing risk of CA-AKI. Subgroup analyses suggested that the administration of NAC had greater benefits in patients with renal dysfunction and in those receiving oral administration and higher dosage of NAC.ConclusionsNAC intake reduces the risk of CA-AKI and all-cause in-hospital mortality in patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI. The estimated potential benefit of NAC in preventing dialysis was ambiguous, and further high-quality studies are needed.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020155265.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document