Hydrogenology
Source-linked study record

Hydrogen gas inhalation ameliorates lung injury after hemorrhagic shock and resuscitation

Moon DH, Kang DY, Haam SJ, Yumoto T, Tsukahara K, Yamada T, Nakao A, Lee S. · Journal of Thoracic Disease. 2019;11(4):1519–1527.

PreclinicalInhaled H₂Published 2019Source checked
Study record, not medical adviceThis record reports what the source states. It is not medical advice and does not establish that molecular hydrogen is effective, safe or appropriate for any person.
Quick summary

Study at a glance

Evidence type

Preclinical

Population or model

Rats weighing 300–500 g assigned to sham, hemorrhagic shock/resuscitation or H₂ plus hemorrhagic shock/resuscitation groups.

Intervention and dose

Chamber inhalation during one hour of hemorrhagic shock and three hours after resuscitation. · 2% H₂, 21% O₂ and 77% N₂ at 4 L/min total chamber flow; control gas was 21% O₂ and 79% N₂.

Duration

One hour after shock induction plus three hours after resuscitation.

Reported result

PO₂ differences between shock groups were not statistically significant and PCO₂ was null across groups. Lactate, inflammatory infiltration, MPO and most inflammatory mediators were lower with H₂ than shock control; several H₂ values remained above sham. The study measured short-term surrogate and tissue outcomes, not survival or clinical recovery.

Main limitation

Preclinical, short-term three-group experiment with no reported consolidated animal total and multiple molecular outcomes. It does not establish benefit in people. Korean National Research Foundation funding was reported and authors declared no conflicts.

Evidence and classification

What kind of evidence is this?

Evidence type

Preclinical

Reported design

Controlled rat hemorrhagic-shock and resuscitation experiment

Research topic

Critical care and ischemia-reperfusion

Administration form

Inhaled H₂

Information not yet classified

Some editorial classification fields are still pending. The source-reported outcomes and result are shown below; Hydrogenology does not infer a positive or negative signal from prose automatically.

Reported in the source

Methods

Population or model

Rats weighing 300–500 g assigned to sham, hemorrhagic shock/resuscitation or H₂ plus hemorrhagic shock/resuscitation groups.

Sample

Three experimental groups; the article does not state one consolidated animal total in the reported methods, so no total is inferred.

Duration

One hour after shock induction plus three hours after resuscitation.

Intervention

Chamber inhalation during one hour of hemorrhagic shock and three hours after resuscitation.

Hydrogen form

Dilute H₂ in oxygen/nitrogen carrier gas — H₂ alone as the experimental component, not Brown's gas.

Dose or H₂ specification

2% H₂, 21% O₂ and 77% N₂ at 4 L/min total chamber flow; control gas was 21% O₂ and 79% N₂.

H₂ flow

80 mL/min H₂, calculated from 2% of the reported 4,000 mL/min chamber flow.

O₂ delivered with H₂

840 mL/min O₂, calculated from 21% of total chamber flow; the same O₂ fraction was used in control gas.

Comparator

Sham and hemorrhagic-shock/resuscitation groups inhaled matched 21% O₂/79% N₂ control gas.

Reported, not endorsed

Outcomes and reported result

Outcomes measured

Arterial PO₂/PCO₂ and lactate, lung histology, inflammatory-cell infiltration, myeloperoxidase activity and pulmonary inflammatory mediators.

Reported result

PO₂ differences between shock groups were not statistically significant and PCO₂ was null across groups. Lactate, inflammatory infiltration, MPO and most inflammatory mediators were lower with H₂ than shock control; several H₂ values remained above sham. The study measured short-term surrogate and tissue outcomes, not survival or clinical recovery.

Extraction completeness

The complete Journal of Thoracic Disease/PMC article, gas composition and chamber flow, blood-gas null findings, histology, inflammatory tables, funding and conflicts were checked.

A reported association, difference or mechanism is not automatically a clinical benefit.

Interpretation limits

Limitations and applicability

Main methodological cautions

Preclinical, short-term three-group experiment with no reported consolidated animal total and multiple molecular outcomes. It does not establish benefit in people. Korean National Research Foundation funding was reported and authors declared no conflicts.

Applies directly to

Rat hemorrhagic-shock/resuscitation lung-injury model only.

No single-study GRADE certainty rating is assigned. Read how records and evidence assessments are prepared.

Sources and status

Sources and record status

Identifiers

PMID: 31179095 · DOI: 10.21037/jtd.2019.03.23

Publisher access

Free full article on the journal site and PubMed Central.

Extraction basis

Journal of Thoracic Disease and PMC full articles plus PubMed metadata; full-text and article-status check completed 8 August 2026.

Last reviewed

10 August 2026

Help the next reader

Help people check the facts before they buy.

Hydrogenology keeps 665 source-checked records accessible without advertising or product promotion.

Support independent access
Help us correct the recordReport a discrepancy

Send the exact difference between this page and the linked source. The study reference is attached automatically.