Evidence Hub

Quercetin-associated cardioprotection in preclinical myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Zhao Shi, Zheng Liang, Ding-dao Chen, Xing-Ye Wang, Dongze Zhang, Ming Yao, Lihong Jiang

Frontiers in Pharmacology, 2026

Abstract

Background and objective Prompt reperfusion is the standard treatment for acute myocardial infarction, but it can induce myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury (MIRI). Quercetin, a plant-derived flavonoid, has been investigated as a potential cardioprotective agent in preclinical MIRI models; however, its effect magnitude, dose-exposure relevance, and mechanistic specificity remain uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated quercetin monotherapy in vivo and ex vivo MIRI models. Methods Databases were searched from inception to March 2026 for controlled preclinical studies comparing quercetin monotherapy with vehicle-treated MIRI controls. The primary endpoint was myocardial infarct size. Secondary outcomes included myocardial injury biomarkers, hemodynamic recovery, oxidative-stress markers, and inflammatory cytokines. Random-effects models calculated standardized mean differences (SMDs) or mean differences (MDs). Subgroup, leave-one-out, split-control, risk-of-bias-informed, dose-response meta-regression, and publication-bias analyses were performed where feasible. This review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD420261325366). Results Twenty studies were included. Quercetin was associated with reduced infarct size compared with vehicle controls (SMD = −2.98, 95% confidence interval −4.37 to −1.58; P < 0.00001). A split-control sensitivity analysis showed an attenuated but directionally consistent…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free