Trial reportMedicine2019
Beneficial effect of polaprezinc on cardiac function post-myocardial infarction: A prospective and randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ferroptosis-related stress during aging and its relevance to disease.GeroScience · 2026Review
- Evaluation of effectiveness and safety of polaprezinc as an adjuvant therapy in enhancing fracture healing in adults with closed fractures: a prospective study.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Carnosine and Beta-Alanine Supplementation in Human Medicine: Narrative Review and Critical Assessment.Nutrients · 2023Review
- DNMT1 mediates the disturbed flow-induced endothelial to mesenchymal transition through disrupting β-alanine and carnosine homeostasis.Theranostics · 2023Article
- Trypanosoma cruzi iron superoxide dismutases: insights from phylogenetics to chemotherapeutic target assessment.Parasites & vectors · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPolaprezinc is clinically used for the treatment of gastric ulcers. It induces the mobilization of mesenchymal stem cells and the mRNA expression of insulin-like growth factor-1 in vascular endothelial cells in order to protect injured gastric tissue or skin.
methodsThe current study population included 50 patients with primary acute myocardial infarction (AMI). After percutaneous coronary intervention, the subjects were randomly divided into 2 groups, namely, the nonpolaprezinc and polaprezinc groups. Peripheral blood and urinary samples were collected in a specific time to analyze zinc concentration, cardiac enzymes, and the levels of the inflammation marker interleukin-6. To evaluate the cardiac function, echocardiography was performed upon admission to the hospital and at 9 months post-AMI.
resultsThe urine and blood zinc levels of the polaprezinc group were higher compared with those of the non-polaprezinc group at 8 days after percutaneous coronary intervention. The mean interleukin-6/maximal creatine phosphokinase level was significantly reduced in the polaprezinc group (0.024 [0.003-0.066] vs. 0.076 [0.015-0.212], respectively; P = .045). In addition, echocardiography revealed that the ejection fraction of the nonpolaprezinc group was not significantly increased between day 3 and 9 months post-AMI (53 [49-60.8] vs. 59.5 [52-69.3], respectively; P = .015). However, a significant increase was detected in the ejection fraction of the polaprezinc group at the 2 time points (54 [51-57] vs. 62 [55-71], respectively; P < .01).
conclusionsThe results of the present study suggest that polaprezinc has an anti-inflammatory effect and improves cardiac function after AMI.
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.