Chronic Renal Failure Report

This report compares the effectiveness of acetylcystine and adequate hydration in treating chronic renal failure. It analyzes the benefits of each intervention and concludes that both are beneficial but have different applications based on individual patient needs.

Nursing

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................1
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................2
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................3

INTRODUCTION
Chronic renal failure refers to slow and progressive loss of kidney function over a period
of several years. It includes damage to kidney which interrupt in its normal functioning that can
worsen over time (Rushworth and Megson, 2014). The present report will focus on comparison
between acetylcystine and an adequate hydration in order to produce renal function.
MAIN BODY
Chronic renal failure cam be described as a condition involving a reduce in the kidneys'
ability to filter waste and fluid from the blood. It involve reduction in functioning of kidneys due
to which risk of increasing toxic materials in blood which is harmful for human body (Giacoppo
and et. al., 2014). Meanwhile, chronic renal failure has number of symptoms such as blood in
urine, anaemia, reduced mental alertness, reduced urine output, oedema, fatigue, hypertension,
insomnia, nausea, muscle cramps and many more. However, it is necessary to get immediate
treatment and mediations for this problems because it can become worsen or permanent over the
time.
The pico question is “Among patients with renal failure, is the administration of
acetylcystine compared to adequate hydration proves more effective in order to produce
renal function”?
Problem – Patient with chronic renal failure
Intervention – Regimen with acetylcystine
Comparison – Adequate hydration
Outcome – Renal protection
In context of renal patients, it has been analysed that N-acetylcystine is widely preferred by
physicians as a prophylactic therapy in order to conduct contrast induced nephropathy (CIN). It
is helpful yo protect kidney from injury induced by contrast media, ischaemia and toxins (Manari
and et. al., 2014). However, the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) can be considered as the
surrogate marker of kidney injury and serum creatinine changes which can be measured metric
of GFR. Moreover, N-acetylcystine is beneficial as it is responsible for altering the serum level
of creatinine independent of change in GFR and it reduce serum creatinine levels which facilitate
normal kidney function.
1

In contrary to this, adequate hydration has a beneficial effects in case of renal failure and reduce
risks of kidney problems. It involves the fact the an adequate hydration is effective at the time of
conducting diabetic nephropathy (Pandya and et. al., 2017). However, it provides the potential
benefit to facilitate kidney become able to concentrate urine which is favourable for patients
dialysis dependent patients. In addition to this, it is observed the increased water intake is well
accepted method for preventing renal calculi and recurrent dehydration & heat stress from
extreme occupation conditions are most possible reason of an ongoing chronic kidney disease
epidemic in several areas (Chong and et. al., 2015).
By analysing used of both Regimen with acetylcystine and an adequate hydration, it has
been analysed that these components are beneficial in different condition of renal failures.
Adequate hydration is more suitable for dialysis dependent patient & diabetic nephropathy
whereas Regimen with acetylcystine is suitable to maintain desired serum creatinine levels to
facilitate renal protection (Jurado-Román and et. al., 2015).
CONCLUSION
The above report has been concluded that renal failure is a condition of damage in kidney
which results into impairments in its normal functions. It involve use of acetylcholine and an
adequate hydration which facilitate normal functioning of kidneys in different condition of
patients.
2

REFERENCES
Books and journals
Rushworth, G.F. and Megson, I.L., 2014. Existing and potential therapeutic uses for N-
acetylcysteine: the need for conversion to intracellular glutathione for antioxidant
benefits. Pharmacology & therapeutics, 141(2), pp.150-159.
Giacoppo, D. and et. al., 2014. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of preprocedural
statin administration for reducing contrast-induced acute kidney injury in patients
undergoing coronary catheterization. The American journal of cardiology, 114(4),
pp.541-548.
Manari, A. and et. al., 2014. Acute kidney injury after primary angioplasty: effect of different
hydration treatments. Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine, 15(1), pp.60-67.
Pandya, B. and et. al., 2017. Contrast media use in patients with chronic kidney disease
undergoing coronary angiography: a systematic review and meta-analysis of
randomized trials. International journal of cardiology, 228, pp.137-144.
Chong, E. and et. al., 2015. Comparison of combination therapy of high-dose oral N-
acetylcysteine and intravenous sodium bicarbonate hydration with individual therapies
in the reduction of Contrast-induced Nephropathy during Cardiac Catheterisation and
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (CONTRAST): a multi-centre, randomised,
controlled trial. International journal of cardiology, 201, pp.237-242.
Jurado-Román, A. and et. al., 2015. Role of hydration in contrast-induced nephropathy in
patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention. The American
journal of cardiology, 115(9), pp.1174-1178.Davenport, M.S., Cohan, R.H. and Ellis,
J.H., 2015. Contrast media controversies in 2015: imaging patients with renal
impairment or risk of contrast reaction. American Journal of Roentgenology, 204(6),
pp.1174-1181.
3