ReviewAdvanced healthcare materials2025
Advances in Conductive Nanomaterials for Cardiac Arrhythmia and Future Directions in Bioevaluation Strategies.
Review in Advanced healthcare materials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Programming the beating heart with polymer catalysis: a therapeutic microenvironment revolution.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Review
- Advances in Conductive Nanomaterials for Cardiac Arrhythmia and Future Directions in Bioevaluation Strategies.Advanced healthcare materials · 2025Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
Cardiac arrhythmia (CA), characterized by irregular heart rhythms, affects nearly 90% of individuals with cardiovascular diseases. Commonly triggered by myocardial infarction (MI) or ion channel dysfunctions, CA is traditionally treated using pacemakers, cardioversion, ablation, and anti-arrhythmic drugs. Recently, emerging strategies like cardiac patches and injectable formulations with conductive nanomaterials (CNMs) have shown promise in restoring cardiac rhythm post-MI. This review explores CNMs-such as gold nanoparticles, carbon nanotubes, and conjugated polymers-that mimic the electrical and mechanical properties of native cardiac tissue. While in vitro studies show encouraging results, translating CNMs to clinical settings faces challenges. Few studies have assessed their safety and efficacy in rodent models, and none in larger animals. This gap stems from the complexity and ethical hurdles of large animal research. To address this, the review advocates using small animal models like zebrafish, Drosophila melanogaster, and Caenorhabditis elegans. These models offer insights into pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, genetic effects, and cardiac parameters such as ejection fraction and cardiac output-data often unattainable in vitro. Such platforms can better evaluate CNMs' safety and efficacy than 2D/3D cultures, accelerating progress toward clinical application.
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.