AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightHowever, the study results are in favor of the N-acetyl cysteine treatment due to the significantly reduced length of in-hospital stay.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of N-acetyl cysteine administration on burn patients complicated with acute renal failure. Methods: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, 69 patients with burn injury were studied. Eligible subjects were patients with burn injury, complicated with acute renal failure within 5 days post-burn. In the study group, 600 mg of N-acetyl cysteine was supplemented every 8 hours orally, while the control group was given the placebo. Serum levels of urea and creatinine and urine volume were closely monitored. Results: Sixty-two participants (32 men and 30 women; age range 19-56 and mean ± SD, 35.66 ± 9.68) completed the trial. The mean serum urea and creatinine levels, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and urine volume were improved in both patient groups, without any significant difference between the groups (analysis of covariance, P > .05). The mean length of stay in the hospital for all subjects was 10.14 ± 1.67 days which was 11.22 ± 1.33 days in the control group and 9.06 ± 1.23 days in the study group. Data show a significant decrease in the duration of hospitalization in the patients who were receiving N-acetyl cysteine compared to those who were receiving the placebo (P = .001). Conclusion: There were no significant differences in primary endpoints between subjects treated with N-acetyl cysteine or placebo, and the potential therapeutic effectiveness of N-acetyl cysteine for burn-related acute renal failure failed in this study. However, the study results are in favor of the N-acetyl cysteine treatment due to the significantly reduced length of in-hospital stay.