ReviewNature reviews. Cardiology2026
The effects of microplastics and nanoplastics on cardiovascular disease: mechanisms and perspectives.
Review in Nature reviews. Cardiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ovarian toxic effects of micro- and nanoplastics (Review).Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2026Review
- Gut-Mediated Systemic Toxicity of Micro- and Nanoplastics: Nanoscale Biointerface Properties, Microbiota-Metabolite Crosstalk, and Evidence Across Gut-Organ Axes.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Micro- and Nanoplastics in Cardiovascular Toxicology: Human Tissue Detection, Clinical Phenotypes, and Adverse Outcome Signals.Cardiovascular toxicology · 2026Review
- Environmental Exposure to Micro- and Nanoplastics: Linking Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer Through Shared Biological Pathways-A Critical Review.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A Bibliometric Review and Knowledge Mapping of Microplastics and Nanoplastics in Cardiovascular Research.Cardiovascular toxicology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microplastics and nanoplastics (MNPs) are pervasive environmental pollutants that result from the degradation of plastic materials and the use of plastic-containing products. Although the accumulation of MNPs in the gastrointestinal and respiratory systems is well documented, growing evidence suggests that MNPs can translocate into the bloodstream and accumulate in cardiovascular tissue, raising concerns about their potential role in the development of cardiovascular disease. In this Review, we synthesize the current knowledge on MNP exposure routes, tissue distribution and biological effects relevant to cardiovascular health. We examine the latest clinical and experimental studies on the presence of MNPs in the blood, atherosclerotic plaques, thrombi and myocardial tissue, and critically evaluate the mechanistic evidence linking MNPs to endothelial dysfunction, atherosclerosis progression, myocardial injury and arrhythmogenesis. In vitro and in vivo data highlight plausible pathophysiological pathways linking MNPs to cardiovascular disease, including oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, inflammation and fibrotic remodelling. However, causal associations remain unproven in humans, and major methodological challenges persist, including inconsistent detection methods, limited epidemiological data and inadequate modelling of real-world exposure. We conclude by outlining research priorities and proposing a framework for how to integrate MNPs into environmental cardiology practice. As the global issue of plastic pollution intensifies, elucidating the cardiovascular risks posed by MNPs represents an urgent interdisciplinary challenge with substantial public health implications.
Identifiers
41872306What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.