Comparison of hydrogen administration methods in the treatment of radiation-induced heart disease in rats
Kura B, Pavelkova P, Kalocayova B, Sykora M, Vlkovicova J, Kluknavsky M, LeBaron T, Pobijakova M, Sagatova A, Slezak J. · Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 2026;104:1–13.
What kind of evidence is this?
Preclinical
Randomized controlled rat study
Cardiovascular and circulatory health
Inhaled H₂
Mixed preclinical signal; inhalation generally stronger.
Tissue, physiological and biomarker outcomes in rats.
Methods at a glance
Adult male Wistar rats receiving thoracic irradiation.
64 rats across eight groups and two experiment durations.
Two- and nine-day experiments after 10 Gy thoracic radiation.
Hydrogen-rich water by gavage or 4% H₂ inhalation, before and repeatedly after irradiation.
H₂ dissolved in water or inhaled H₂ gas.
Water at least 4 mg/L, 3 mL three times daily; inhaled H₂ at 4% for 30 minutes per session.
Chamber delivery reported in the full methods.
Carrier-gas conditions were controlled as reported.
Non-irradiated, irradiated and route-matched control groups.
Outcomes and reported result
Cardiac tissue injury, oxidative and inflammatory markers and cardiac measurements.
Several injury and biomarker measures favored H₂, particularly inhalation, while many comparisons were null.
The full article methods, intervention, outcomes, positive and null findings, funding and conflict statements were checked.
A reported association, difference or mechanism is not automatically a clinical benefit. Null findings, outcome type, study design and precision all matter.
Cautions and applicability
Multiple groups and outcomes, short follow-up and no patient evidence.
The reported acute rat radiation-heart model only.
SYRCLE animal-study tool — preliminary
Some concerns
Randomization was reported, but concealment and blinded outcome assessment were not consistently established across outcomes.
Sequence generation checked where reported · Allocation concealment generally unclear · Personnel blinding generally unclear · Outcome-assessor blinding generally unclear · No prospectively registered analysis plan identified
No single-study GRADE certainty rating is assigned. Certainty is assessed by important outcome across a complete eligible evidence set, not by attaching a final grade to one source.
Sources and record status
PMID: 41806364 · DOI: 10.1139/cjpp-2025-0085
A free publisher or repository full article was checked.
Publisher or repository full article and bibliographic record; checked 10 August 2026.
2026-08-10