ReviewExpert review of cardiovascular therapy2016
Chelation therapy to treat atherosclerosis, particularly in diabetes: is it time to reconsider?
Review in Expert review of cardiovascular therapy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Overview of the cardiovascular effects of environmental metals: New preclinical and clinical insights.Toxicology and applied pharmacology · 2022Article
- Heavy Metal-Induced Cerebral Small Vessel Disease: Insights into Molecular Mechanisms and Possible Reversal Strategies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
- Therapeutic use of tetrasodium ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid solution for treatment of subcutaneous ureteral bypass device mineralization in cats.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2019Article
- Chemical Transport Knockout for Oxidized Vitamin C, Dehydroascorbic Acid, Reveals Its Functions in vivo.EBioMedicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionCase reports and case series have suggested a possible beneficial effect of chelation therapy in patients with atherosclerotic disease. Small randomized trials conducted in patients with angina or peripheral artery disease, however, were not sufficiently powered to provide conclusive evidence on clinical outcomes. AREAS COVERED: The Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) was the first randomized trial adequately powered to detect the effects of chelation therapy on clinical endpoints. We discuss results and future research. Expert commentary: Chelation reduced adverse cardiovascular events in a post myocardial infarction (MI) population. Patients with diabetes demonstrated even greater benefit, with a number needed to treat of 6.5 patients to prevent a cardiac event over 5 years, with a 41% relative reduction in risk of a cardiac event (p = 0.0002). These results led to the revision of the ACC/AHA guideline recommendations for chelation therapy, changing its classification from class III to class IIb. TACT2, a replicative trial, will assess the effects of chelation therapy on cardiovascular outcomes in diabetic patients with a prior myocardial infarction. We are seeking participating sites for TACT2.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.