A meta-analysis of N-acetylcysteine in contrast-induced nephrotoxicity: unsupervised clustering to resolve heterogeneity

• Published in: BMC medicine Vol. 5; no. 1; p. 32
• Main Authors: Gonzales, Denise A, Norsworthy, Kelly J, Kern, Steven J, Banks, Steve, Sieving, Pamela C, Star, Robert A, Natanson, Charles, Danner, Robert L
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BioMed Central Ltd 14.11.2007; BioMed Central; BMC
• Subjects: Acetylcysteine; Acetylcysteine - pharmacology; Aged; Cluster Analysis; Contrast Media - adverse effects; Creatinine - metabolism; Female; Health aspects; Humans; Kidney diseases; Kidney Diseases - chemically induced; Kidney Diseases - prevention & control; Male; Meta-analysis; Methods; Middle Aged; Models, Biological; Prevention; Publication Bias; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Regression Analysis; Renal Dialysis; Risk Factors; Sensitivity and Specificity; United Kingdom
• ISSN: 1741-7015; 1741-7015
• DOI: 10.1186/1741-7015-5-32

Meta-analyses of N-acetylcysteine (NAC) for preventing contrast-induced nephrotoxicity (CIN) have led to disparate conclusions. Here we examine and attempt to resolve the heterogeneity evident among these trials. Two reviewers independently extracted and graded the data. Limiting studies to randomized, controlled trials with adequate outcome data yielded 22 reports with 2746 patients. Significant heterogeneity was detected among these trials (I2 = 37%; p = 0.04). Meta-regression analysis failed to identify significant sources of heterogeneity. A modified L'Abbé plot that substituted groupwise changes in serum creatinine for nephrotoxicity rates, followed by model-based, unsupervised clustering resolved trials into two distinct, significantly different (p < 0.0001) and homogeneous populations (I2 = 0 and p > 0.5, for both). Cluster 1 studies (n = 18; 2445 patients) showed no benefit (relative risk (RR) = 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68-1.12, p = 0.28), while cluster 2 studies (n = 4; 301 patients) indicated that NAC was highly beneficial (RR = 0.15; 95% CI 0.07-0.33, p < 0.0001). Benefit in cluster 2 was unexpectedly associated with NAC-induced decreases in creatinine from baseline (p = 0.07). Cluster 2 studies were relatively early, small and of lower quality compared with cluster 1 studies (p = 0.01 for the three factors combined). Dialysis use across all studies (five control, eight treatment; p = 0.42) did not suggest that NAC is beneficial. This meta-analysis does not support the efficacy of NAC to prevent CIN.