Hydrogenology
Hydrogenology editorial study record

A randomized controlled double-blind study on the brain protection of infantile patients with epileptic spasm syndrome through atomized inhalation of hydrogen-oxygen gas

Chen C, He W, Chen J, Shi XY, Yang G, Wang J, Wang YY, Hu PL, Han F, Meng Y, Zou LP. · Frontiers in Neurology. 2026;17:1781738.

HumanInhaled H₂Published 2026
Study record, not medical adviceThis page reports one source and Hydrogenology’s source-text extraction. It does not establish that molecular hydrogen is effective, safe or appropriate for any person. Human, animal and laboratory evidence must not be treated as equivalent.
Source and classification

What kind of evidence is this?

Evidence stream

Human

Reported design

Single-center prospective randomized double-blind controlled trial

Research topic

Other neurological conditions

Administration classification

Inhaled H₂

Study result signal

Not reported in this record.

Outcome type

Not reported in this record.

Reported in the source

Methods at a glance

Population or model

Children with infantile epileptic spasms syndrome treated at the Chinese PLA General Hospital from November 2021 to November 2023; guardians provided written informed consent.

Sample

60 children were initially enrolled; seven discontinued for personal reasons or poor adherence, and 53 completed treatment and were included in the efficacy analysis: oxyhydrogen n=27 and medical-air control n=26.

Duration

Four 1-hour inhalation sessions daily for 14 days; only short-term efficacy and safety were assessed.

Intervention

In addition to standard IESS treatment, children inhaled the test mixture through a face mask for 1 hour, four times daily, for 14 consecutive days.

Hydrogen form

Brown's gas / oxyhydrogen — co-generated H₂ and O₂, not H₂ alone.

H₂ specification

AMS-H-03 generator manufactured by Shanghai Huimei Medical Technology Co., Ltd.; 66.6% H₂ and 33.3% O₂ at a reported total flow of 3 L/min. The percentages total 99.9% because the article reports rounded values.

H₂ flow

Approximately 1,998 mL/min H₂, calculated from the reported 3,000 mL/min total flow × 66.6%; the article does not report a separately measured H₂ flow.

O₂ delivered with H₂

33.3% O₂; approximately 999 mL/min O₂, calculated from 3,000 mL/min × 33.3%. The 0.1% rounding remainder is unresolved in the source.

Comparator

Medical air delivered through a visually and operationally matched device at the same 3 L/min flow, with standard IESS treatment in both groups.

Reported, not endorsed

Outcomes and reported result

Outcomes measured

Spasm-frequency reduction and response rate, EEG hypsarrhythmia disappearance, Kramer and BASED scores, abnormal IL-6 rate, respiratory infection and adverse reactions including myocardial-enzyme elevation, gastrointestinal dysfunction and abnormal liver function.

Reported result

No significant between-group difference was found for spasm reduction (p=0.705), treatment response (p=0.950), EEG hypsarrhythmia disappearance (p=0.576), Kramer score (p=0.140), BASED score (p=0.168) or abnormal IL-6 rate (p=0.081). Overall adverse-reaction incidence was reported as comparable and no serious adverse events occurred, but elevated myocardial enzymes (28.3% vs 10.9%), gastrointestinal dysfunction (43.5% vs 23.9%) and abnormal liver function (8.7% vs 0%) were reported more often in the oxyhydrogen group, all p<0.05.

Results-extraction completeness

The complete open-access article, randomization and blinding, participant flow, co-intervention, gas device, composition and total flow, efficacy outcomes including null results, safety findings, limitations, funding, trial registration and conflict statement were checked.

A reported association, difference or mechanism is not automatically a clinical benefit. Null findings, outcome type, study design and precision all matter.

Interpretation limits

Cautions and applicability

Design and reporting cautions

Small single-center trial with limited statistical power, seven post-enrollment discontinuations, fixed intervention parameters, 14-day exposure, no long-term neurodevelopmental follow-up and limited mechanistic assessment. The safety percentages reported in the article appear to use denominators larger than the stated randomized groups; Hydrogenology preserves the published values and flags this internal inconsistency rather than recalculating them. The National Key Research and Development Program of China funded the work; authors declared no commercial or financial conflicts.

Applies directly to

Short-term adjunctive oxyhydrogen exposure in children already receiving standard IESS treatment; it did not show added efficacy and does not establish long-term safety.

Preliminary appraisal framework

Not reported in this record.

Preliminary risk-of-bias status

Not reported in this record.

Appraisal rationale

Not reported in this record.

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.

Provenance

Sources and record status

Identifiers

PMID: 41908285 · DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2026.1781738

Publisher access

Open-access Frontiers article and PubMed Central copy.

Extraction basis

Complete Frontiers/PubMed Central article and PubMed metadata; full-text extraction checked 9 August 2026.

Record revision

2026-08-10