Key result
N-acetylcysteine was evaluated in a systematic review to determine its potential adjunctive beneficial effect across various cardiovascular disorders.
Why the study?
Does N-acetylcysteine improve outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disorders?
Systematic Review
Does N-acetylcysteine improve outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disorders?
This systematic review investigates the potential adjunctive beneficial effects of N-acetylcysteine across a wide variety of cardiovascular disorders.
N-acetylcysteine's adjunctive role in cardiovascular disorders remains unproven; systematic review leaves clinical utility open for targeted trials.
Cardiovascular disorders are a common cause of mortality around the world. The role of antioxidants is controversial in the prevention and treatment of a wide variety of cardiovascular events. N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is an antioxidant that is believed to have an adjunctive beneficial effect in different medical conditions. We investigated all of the cardiovascular disorders for which NAC was administered in order to find its possible advantageous impact. We included clinical trials that were conducted in patients with heart failure, myocardial infarction, hypertension, atherosclerosis, ischemic heart disease or those who underwent cardiothoracic surgery. However, to date there is no comprehensive review on the potential impact of NAC in cardiovascular disorders. Therefore, we conducted a systematic literature search in MEDLINE/PubMed. A search strategy using medical subject headings and text keywords such as ‘N-acetylcysteine’, ‘cardiology’, ‘cardiac’, ‘acute care’, ‘cardiovascular’, ‘cardiothoracic’, ‘hea...
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Talasaz et al. (2011) conducted a systematic review in Cardiovascular disorders. N-acetylcysteine (NAC) was evaluated. N-acetylcysteine was evaluated in a systematic review to determine its potential adjunctive beneficial effect across various cardiovascular disorders.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: