Chelation therapy: process, duration and what to expect
The pre-assessment, the day itself hour by hour, cycles, mineral monitoring and how to recognise a responsible process. Honestly contextualised, without panic and without promises of a cure.
It is not the medication that decides the safety of chelation therapy, but the process around it. Chelation therapy is only as safe and only as sensible as the diagnostics before it, the monitoring during it and the mineral support after it. If you take a single thing away from this article, let it be this.
The mix of hope and uncertainty before the first session
Many people sit with the decision for chelation therapy carrying the same mix of hope and uncertainty. They have read that heavy metals can be removed. But no one has told them what actually happens on the day, whether it hurts, how long it takes and how they can tell they are in good hands.
This is exactly the gap this article fills. It is not about the pharmacology of chelating agents, the ring binding to metals or the comparison of the individual substances. That is covered in detail in our overview of heavy metals in the body. Here it is about the journey you go through as a person: from the first question to the last session.
And it is about an honest contextualisation. Conventional medicine views chelation therapy outside of acute poisoning with great skepticism, and it has good reasons for that skepticism. At the same time, some providers sell it as a miracle cure, which it is not. I try to show you a third path: confident, transparent and oriented towards what the evidence actually supports.
Before a single drop runs: the safety pre-assessment
When you think of chelation therapy, you probably think of the infusion. In fact, the infusion is the last step of a chain that begins much earlier. A responsible process starts with a question: is there even a measurable, mobilisable burden, and can your kidneys safely carry the excretion?
This question is no bureaucratic preliminary. It is the actual safety core. Pharmacokinetics tell us why.
Researchers gave healthy adults the chelating agent DMPS intravenously and tracked blood and urine over four days. They found a half-life of the free active substance of about 1.8 hours and an almost complete excretion via the kidneys. For you this means two things: a session can be short, because the active substance acts quickly, and kidney function must be confirmed beforehand, because the kidney is the organ of excretion.
Hurlbut KM et al. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1994;268(2):662-8. PMID: 8113976If the active substance and the mobilised metals leave the body via the kidney, then kidney function is the first safeguard that needs to be checked. That is why a basic lab panel belongs before every chelation therapy. Toxicology has provided a concrete list for this.
In an analysis of mercury poisonings caused by mercury-containing skin creams, the author describes the sensible approach before a chelation treatment: a 24-hour collected urine sample as the best marker of the burden, plus a blood count, electrolytes, liver and kidney values. That delivers exactly the building blocks that make a pre-assessment safe.
Chan TYK. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2011;49(10):886-91. DOI: 10.3109/15563650.2011.626425The pre-assessment also includes the question of whether a therapy threshold is even reached. Chelation therapy is not a procedure done on suspicion. It has indications, and those should be clarified before anyone plans an infusion.
In an overview of lead burden in childhood, the author notes that oral DMSA is only approved from clearly elevated blood lead levels onwards and that cleaning up the environment remains indispensable. The message can be transferred: chelation has an indication threshold, it is not something you run on a vague suspicion.
Berlin CM. Curr Opin Pediatr. 1997;9(2):173-7. DOI: 10.1097/00008480-199704000-00011How this mobilisable burden is made visible in the first place, for example via a provocation test, is a topic in itself. I describe the process and the pitfalls of this measurement in detail in the article on the DMPS mobilisation test. For the therapy process it is enough to know: measure first, then decide, then treat.
The pre-assessment is not an obstacle on the way to therapy. It is the active protection that makes the therapy justifiable in the first place. Anyone who begins infusions without a kidney check and without a mineral baseline skips exactly the part that decides on safety.
The day itself, hour by hour
When the pre-assessment is complete and everything supports going ahead, the actual treatment day begins. What happens then is usually less spectacular than many fear. The following timeline describes the typical course of a single session. The minute figures are experiential values from practice, not quantified from studies, and can vary individually.
Arriving and settling down
You arrive, put on something comfortable and sit or lie down in a chair. It is sensible to have eaten something and drunk enough beforehand. Rush has no place on this day, the body should go into the session relaxed.
Current status before the infusion
Before every session there is a brief look at how you are feeling: how were you after the last infusion, what is your current mineral and general status, is there anything new. This check helps decide whether and how today's session proceeds.
The needle prick, the most unpleasant moment
A thin venous access is placed, comparable to a normal blood draw. For most people this is the only truly noticeable moment. Afterwards the needle is fixed and you can let your arm rest comfortably.
The infusion time
Now the infusion runs in, in practice over about 30 to 60 minutes. Most people barely feel anything during it. You can read, listen to music or simply rest. Some feel completely normal, some a little tired or slightly off. The fact that the session can be this short fits the pharmacokinetics of the active substance.
A short rest and settling in
After the end of the infusion the access is removed and you rest a while longer. This phase is not a luxury, it gives the circulation time and allows one last check on how you are feeling before you set off home.
Drink, take it easy, observe
On the way home and on the day after, the rule is: drink enough so that the kidneys can excrete the mobilised substances well, and listen to your own body. A mild tiredness or off feeling can occur and usually subsides quickly.
That is, in broad terms, the real course of a treatment day. Not a dramatic event, but a calm, structured procedure. The actual work happens invisibly on the inside, there where the chelating agent binds metals and channels them towards excretion.
What happens in the body and why monitoring is part of it
While you sit calmly in the chair, something measurable happens on the inside. The chelating agent combines with stored metals and makes them excretable via the urine. This mobilisation is no theoretical effect, it is documented in numbers.
In mercury-exposed people, mercury excretion in the urine rose 38- to 87-fold after DMPS, depending on the level of the previous burden. This shows two things: the mobilisation is real and large, and it depends on how much is stored in the body. That is exactly why monitoring is needed instead of flying blind.
Maiorino RM et al. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1996;277(2):938-44. PMID: 8627576Mercury in the urine: spontaneous versus after chelation
Schematic representation based on Maiorino 1996 and Aposhian 1992. The jump in excretion is exactly the reason why support during the therapy is not an extra, but a duty.
In subjects with amalgam fillings, DMPS increased mercury excretion in the urine, in positive correlation with the number of fillings. In other words: those who have more stored excrete more under chelation. This supports the rationale of the pre-assessment, because the mobilisation runs in a burden-dependent way.
Aposhian HV et al. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 1992;30(4):505-28. DOI: 10.3109/15563659209017938When the body suddenly releases a multiple of metals, that is a double-edged sword. Exactly what the therapy wants is also what can make it risky if no one is watching. That is why course controls are a fixed part of the process.
In an extensive analysis of DMSA in lead burden, the authors report temporary rises in liver values in up to 60 percent of those treated and skin reactions in about 6 percent. Both are usually mild and reversible, but they show why monitoring is done regularly during chelation therapy.
Bradberry S, Vale A. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2009;47(7):617-31. DOI: 10.1080/15563650903174828The detailed list of possible side effects and the mineral loss in detail belong in a text of their own. If you are interested in that more closely, read the article on side effects, risks and mineral loss. Here the core is enough: monitoring is not distrust of the therapy, it is part of it.
How often, how long, when do I stop?
One of the most common questions before the first session is: is this now a one-off appointment or a matter of months? The honest answer: chelation therapy is, as a rule, not a single event, but a process in cycles with deliberate breaks.
This is not practice arbitrariness, but has a biological logic. Metals do not just sit freely in the blood, but in tissues. After a session the remaining burden redistributes, part of it moves from the stores into more accessible compartments. A break gives this redistribution time before the next cycle mobilises again.
The authors describe, for DMSA in lead burden, treatment cycles of a few days, followed by at least a week of break, so that the tissue burden can redistribute. This is the evidence basis for the principle of cycles and breaks, which can be transferred in its core idea to other chelating agents.
Bradberry S, Vale A. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2009;47(7):617-31. DOI: 10.1080/15563650903174828In twelve people with mercury burden, oral DMPS was given on an outpatient basis in a multi-day cycle, with a marked rise in mercury excretion above all in the first 24 hours. This illustrates how a single outpatient cycle can concretely look.
Garza-Ocanas L et al. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 1997;35(6):653-5. DOI: 10.3109/15563659709001249How many cycles ultimately make sense cannot be pressed into a blanket number. It depends on the measured burden, on your tolerability and above all on the course. A practical signal that I observe in practice is how the excreted amounts develop over the cycles.
When the mobilisable metal amounts decrease over the cycles, that is a plausible hint that the stores are emptying. I use this as orientation over the course. Important for honesty: none of the studies known to me has systematically followed this decreasing value as an efficacy endpoint over many cycles. It is an experiential value drawn from the mobilisation logic, not a hard study proof, and it always belongs to be assessed together with the clinical picture and repeated diagnostics.
When to stop is therefore a joint decision from three sources: the repeated diagnostics, the development of the excretion amounts and your subjective well-being. A responsible process keeps an end in view, not a subscription.
Mineral support, the invisible mandatory part
Chelating agents are not selective enough to grasp only the harmful metals. They also flush out important minerals along with them. This is the reason why a mineral baseline before the therapy and an accompanying supplementation during the therapy are not an add-on, but a fixed component.
In sixteen people the urine was examined for metals before and after an EDTA infusion. Besides lead and cadmium, zinc and calcium also rose markedly, copper on the other hand did not significantly. This shows concretely which mineral is particularly affected: above all zinc. That is exactly why zinc belongs in the baseline and in the support.
Waters RS et al. Biol Trace Elem Res. 2001;83(3):207-21. DOI: 10.1385/BTER:83:3:207In an animal model, EDTA increased the excretion of zinc, copper and iron, an early hint of the need to replace minerals. As an animal study this is no direct proof for humans, but it confirms the later human data in the same sense.
Victery W et al. J Lab Clin Med. 1986;107(2):129-35. PMID: 3080537The oral chelating agent DMSA is not entirely neutral here either. It can likewise increase zinc and copper excretion, clinically usually to a moderate extent (Bradberry & Vale 2009). The message stays the same, regardless of the active substance: anyone who removes metals must keep an eye on the minerals flushed out with them.
A removal without mineral support can take from the body in one place what it urgently needs in another. Zinc, for instance, is involved in countless enzymes. That is why I understand supplementation not as the correction of a mistake, but as a part of a well-considered process planned from the start. The concrete scheme, dose and timing relative to the infusion, belongs in individual medical care and not in a public text.
Infusion or tablets? Two paths, one principle
Many search specifically for chelation therapy as a tablet, because an infusion sounds like effort. Both paths exist, and they differ in their process. Which one makes sense depends on the metal, the burden and the clinical picture, not on the wish for convenience.
That oral chelation actually removes metals actively is not just theory. In the animal model the mechanism can be shown cleanly.
In young monkeys, oral succimer (DMSA) reduced lead absorption from the gut and quadrupled lead excretion via the kidney, measured with stable lead isotopes. This is a clean mechanistic proof that oral chelation removes metals, albeit in the animal model and not directly in humans.
Cremin JD et al. Environ Health Perspect. 2001;109(6):613-9. DOI: 10.1289/ehp.01109613The oral path with DMSA, its peculiarities and limits, I describe in detail in the article on DMSA, the oral chelating agent. For the comparison with EDTA and its role in lead and the blood vessels, a look at the text on EDTA chelation therapy is worthwhile. Important for you at this point: a genuine chelation therapy is always medically supervised, whether infusion or tablet.
Why doing chelation therapy yourself is dangerous
There is real search interest in self-application, in powders, patches and internet protocols. I understand the impulse. Anyone who suffers and has the feeling of not being heard by conventional medicine looks for a path on their own. Even so, I have to be clear here, and I give my reasons.
The risk of self-application does not lie in the good will, but in two blind spots: no one checks kidney function, and no one controls the mineral loss. Exactly the mobilisation by a multiple, which makes the therapy effective, becomes a danger without monitoring. On top of that: many over-the-counter products simply do nothing at all.
Researchers applied DMPS as a transdermal preparation to the skin and measured plasma and urine. No DMPS was detectable and mercury excretion did not rise, while an oral comparison subject showed both. In other words: chelation as a cream or patch is not absorbed and does not work. A clear argument against internet products.
Cohen JP et al. J Med Toxicol. 2013;9(1):9-15. DOI: 10.1007/s13181-012-0272-9A systematic Cochrane analysis searched for robust studies on chelation in autism and found no proof of efficacy, but instead documented serious risks up to a reported death. This is the clearest warning against the uncritical use of chelation in unproven indications.
James S et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(5):CD010766. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010766In a large randomised study, high-dose oral multivitamins and minerals after a heart attack did not reduce cardiovascular events. This incidentally dispels the idea that you could more or less detox and protect yourself with supplements. Pills replace neither diagnostics nor a targeted, supervised therapy.
Ujueta F et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2025;185(5):540-548. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.8408If you have the feeling of wanting to do something on your own, there are gentler, everyday approaches that have their place, for example through nutrition and lifestyle. What of that is plausible and what is overrated, I contextualise in the article on natural heavy metal removal. A genuine chelation therapy, however, belongs in medical hands, for exactly the reasons above.
How to recognise a responsible process
The justified criticism of chelation therapy aims not only at the efficacy question, but also at the fact that it is in part sold dishonestly. Instead of avoiding this topic, I openly name the criteria by which you can recognise a clean process. You can take this list into a first consultation like a checklist.
Features of a responsible process
- The process begins with diagnostics, not with the infusion. It is first measured whether there is even a relevant, mobilisable burden.
- Kidney function, liver values, electrolytes and a mineral status are checked before the therapy starts.
- Contraindications are actively asked about and taken seriously.
- There is monitoring during the therapy and breaks between the cycles, no permanent programme without control.
- Minerals are kept in view alongside and replaced when needed.
- The uncertain evidence is named openly, instead of promising a cure.
- There is a jointly discussed end, not an endless subscription of sessions.
- You are taken seriously as a person with questions, not as a customer for a product.
Caution is warranted when someone immediately sells infusions without a pre-assessment, when it is advertised against many different complaints at once, when the skepticism of the specialist literature is simply waved away or when you are promised a cure. Responsible is whoever contextualises, not whoever promises.
The honest contextualisation: a tool, not a miracle cure
It is part of an honest article not to conceal the controversial side. Around chelation therapy there is a big debate, above all on the question of whether it benefits the cardiovascular system beyond the pure removal of metals. The evidence on this is contradictory, and I take you inside it.
In a large study in people after a heart attack, one group received EDTA infusions, the other placebo. The chelation group showed a narrow signal with fewer cardiovascular events (about 26 versus 30 percent), which the authors themselves rated as not sufficient for routine use.
Lamas GA et al. JAMA. 2013;309(12):1241-50. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.2107The larger follow-up study tried to confirm the result in diabetics with a previous heart attack. It found no advantage anymore, even though the blood lead level fell by around 61 percent under EDTA. This is an important finding: chelation lowers the metal burden measurably, but a cardiovascular benefit could not be confirmed.
Lamas GA et al. JAMA. 2024;332(10):794-803. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2024.11463Critical reviews held the early TACT evidence to be not robust from the outset and warned explicitly against using chelation as a substitute for proven standard therapies (Sidhu 2013, Sultan 2017). These voices belong here, they are not an opponent, but a corrective.
| Question | Evidence | Contextualisation |
|---|---|---|
| Does chelation mobilise metals measurably? | Solid (human PK) | Mercury and lead excretion rise markedly |
| Why a kidney check and a short session? | Pharmacologically proven | Short half-life, renal excretion |
| Why mineral support? | Human + animal | Zinc and calcium are flushed out as well |
| Benefit for the cardiovascular system? | Contradictory | TACT narrowly positive, TACT2 negative, considered unproven |
| Chelation in autism? | No proof, risk | Cochrane: without efficacy, with documented harms |
| Transdermal chelation (cream/patch)? | Ineffective | No absorption, no increased excretion |
What you take from this for yourself
Chelation therapy can be a precise tool in the case of a proven heavy metal burden. What it is not: a cardiovascular or universal miracle cure and no substitute for proven standard therapies.
The decisive point remains the process. It is not the molecule that decides on safety and sense, but the diagnostics before, the monitoring during and the mineral support after. And now you know why.
⚗️This text replaces no medical advice, no diagnosis and no individual examination. It describes general processes and mechanisms, not a personal therapy recommendation. Whether a chelation therapy would be sensible and safe for you can only be assessed within the concrete overall clinical picture. That is exactly what a first consultation is for.
Common questions about the process
What does chelation therapy actually involve, step by step?
Responsible chelation therapy does not begin with the infusion, but with a pre-assessment of kidney function, mineral status and contraindications. The session itself is usually short: arriving, a brief check, placing the infusion, an infusion time of around 30 to 60 minutes and a short rest period afterwards. The therapy is given in cycles with breaks, accompanied by mineral monitoring.
How often do you need chelation therapy?
Chelating agents are typically given in cycles with deliberate breaks, so that the tissue burden can redistribute. How many cycles make sense depends on the measured burden and on how the excretion amounts develop over time. There is no blanket number, the frequency follows diagnostics and monitoring, not a fixed schedule.
Does a chelation infusion hurt?
The most unpleasant moment is usually the needle prick when the access is placed, comparable to a normal blood draw. The infusion time itself is generally barely noticeable. Some people feel briefly tired or a little off afterwards, which is why a rest period and monitoring are part of the process.
Which pre-assessment protects me before chelation therapy?
Sensible steps before chelation therapy are checking kidney function, a basic lab panel with electrolytes and liver values, a mineral status as a baseline, and clarifying contraindications. Only then can you assess whether there is even a measurable, mobilisable burden and whether the kidneys can safely carry the excretion.
Why is doing chelation therapy yourself dangerous?
Chelating agents mobilise metals on a large scale. Without checking kidney function and without mineral monitoring, risk arises, because important minerals such as zinc can be flushed out as well. Many over-the-counter products are also ineffective, transdermal DMPS as a cream or patch, for example, is not absorbed at all.
How long does a single chelation session take?
The pure infusion time is, in practice, around 30 to 60 minutes. With arriving, the check, placing the access and the rest period afterwards, you should plan more time overall for the appointment. The fact that the session can be short fits the pharmacokinetics of the active substance, which acts quickly and is excreted via the kidneys.
Is there chelation therapy as tablets instead of an infusion?
Yes, oral chelating agents such as DMSA exist and are used in cycles for certain burdens. They have a different absorption and a different process than the infusion. Which form makes sense depends on the metal, the burden and the clinical picture. Over-the-counter creams or patches are not part of this.
Which minerals do you lose during chelation therapy?
Studies show that under chelating agents, above all zinc, and in part also copper and calcium, can be excreted in larger amounts via the urine. That is why a mineral status as a baseline value and an accompanying supplementation are part of a responsible process, not as an add-on, but as a fixed component.
Does chelation therapy help against heart disease?
The evidence is contradictory. A large study (TACT) showed a narrow signal in 2013, the larger follow-up study TACT2 could not confirm this in 2024, even though lead levels fell markedly. A cardiovascular benefit is therefore considered unproven. Chelation therapy can be a precise tool in the case of a proven heavy metal burden, but it is no cardiovascular miracle cure.
How do I recognise a responsible chelation process?
A responsible process begins with diagnostics instead of with the infusion, checks kidneys and minerals, works with monitoring and breaks, names the uncertain efficacy debate openly and promises no cure. Anyone who immediately sells infusions without a pre-assessment, advertises against many complaints at once or ignores the skepticism of the specialist literature is a warning sign.
How can I tell whether the therapy may be working?
A practical course signal is how the excreted metal amounts develop over the cycles. If the mobilisable burden falls, that is a plausible hint that the stores are emptying. This is an experiential value drawn from the mobilisation logic and should always be assessed together with the clinical picture and repeated diagnostics.
Can I go home normally after the session and work?
Most people can go home normally after the rest period. It is sensible to drink a lot on that day and not to overexert yourself, since a mild tiredness or off feeling can occur. How best to behave on the day of the infusion is clarified individually within the medical care.
Read on in the heavy metals guide
This article is the process building block of a larger guide. If you want to go deeper, these texts carry the individual threads further.
Heavy metals overview
The pillar page: sources, mechanisms, diagnostics, the big picture
PillarDMPS mobilisation test
How the mobilisable burden is correctly measured before the therapy
Side effects & risks
Mineral loss and safety in detail, the next step
DMSA, the oral path
The chelating agent as a tablet, process, options, limits
EDTA for lead
EDTA, calcium and the blood vessels, plus the TACT debate
Natural removal
Chlorella, coriander and co., what is plausible and what is not
Heavy metals & thyroid
The Hashimoto connection, a common background
Recognising mercury
Symptoms and removal, when mercury is involved
Scientific sources
The human evidence for the process itself (pharmacokinetics, mobilisation kinetics, mineral loss, safety profile) is solid and predominantly collected in humans. The human evidence for a cardiovascular benefit is contradictory and considered unproven. For unproven indications such as autism, self-application and transdermal use, the evidence is clearly negative. Animal and in vitro data are marked as such.
- Lamas GA, Goertz C, Boineau R et al. Effect of disodium EDTA chelation regimen on cardiovascular events in patients with previous myocardial infarction (TACT). JAMA. 2013;309(12):1241-50. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.2107 [RCT, Human, n=1708]
- Lamas GA, Anstrom KJ, Navas-Acien A et al. Edetate disodium-based chelation for patients with a previous myocardial infarction and diabetes (TACT2). JAMA. 2024;332(10):794-803. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2024.11463 [RCT, Human, n=959]
- Hurlbut KM, Maiorino RM, Mayersohn M et al. Pharmacokinetics of 2,3-dimercapto-1-propanesulfonate after intravenous administration to human volunteers. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1994;268(2):662-8. PMID: 8113976 [Case-Series, Human, n=5]
- Maiorino RM, Gonzalez-Ramirez D, Zuniga-Charles M et al. Sodium 2,3-dimercaptopropane-1-sulfonate challenge test for mercury in humans III. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1996;277(2):938-44. PMID: 8627576 [Cohort, Human]
- Cohen JP, Ruha AM, Curry SC et al. Plasma and urine dimercaptopropanesulfonate concentrations after dermal application of transdermal DMPS. J Med Toxicol. 2013;9(1):9-15. DOI: 10.1007/s13181-012-0272-9 [Case-Series, Human, n=8+1]
- James S, Stevenson SW, Silove N, Williams K. Chelation for autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(5):CD010766. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010766 [Systematic Review, Human]
- Bradberry S, Vale A. Dimercaptosuccinic acid (succimer; DMSA) in inorganic lead poisoning. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2009;47(7):617-31. DOI: 10.1080/15563650903174828 [Review, Human]
- Waters RS, Bryden NA, Patterson KY, Veillon C, Anderson RA. EDTA chelation effects on urinary losses of cadmium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, magnesium, and zinc. Biol Trace Elem Res. 2001;83(3):207-21. DOI: 10.1385/BTER:83:3:207 [Cohort, Human, n=16]
- Aposhian HV, Maiorino RM, Rivera M et al. Human studies with the chelating agents, DMPS and DMSA. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 1992;30(4):505-28. DOI: 10.3109/15563659209017938 [Overview, Human]
- Aposhian HV, Maiorino RM, Gonzalez-Ramirez D et al. Mobilization of heavy metals by newer, therapeutically useful chelating agents. Toxicology. 1995;97(1-3):23-38. DOI: 10.1016/0300-483x(95)02965-b [Mechanism Review]
- Chan TYK. Inorganic mercury poisoning associated with skin-lightening cosmetic products. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2011;49(10):886-91. DOI: 10.3109/15563650.2011.626425 [Review, Human]
- Cremin JD, Luck ML, Laughlin NK, Smith DR. Oral succimer decreases the gastrointestinal absorption of lead in juvenile monkeys. Environ Health Perspect. 2001;109(6):613-9. DOI: 10.1289/ehp.01109613 [In vivo, Animal, Primate]
- Berlin CM. Lead poisoning in children. Curr Opin Pediatr. 1997;9(2):173-7. DOI: 10.1097/00008480-199704000-00011 [Review, Human]
- Sidhu MS, Saour BM, Boden WE. A TACTful reappraisal of chelation therapy in cardiovascular disease. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2013;11(3):180-3. DOI: 10.1038/nrcardio.2013.176 [Review, critical, Human]
- Sultan S, Murarka S, Jahangir A et al. Chelation therapy in cardiovascular disease: an update. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 2017;10(8):843-854. DOI: 10.1080/17512433.2017.1339601 [Review, Human]
- Garza-Ocanas L, Torres-Alanis O, Pineyro-Lopez A. Urinary mercury in twelve cases of cutaneous mercurous chloride exposure: effect of DMPS therapy. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 1997;35(6):653-5. DOI: 10.3109/15563659709001249 [Case-Series, Human, n=12]
- Victery W, Miller CR, Goyer RA. Essential trace metal excretion from rats with lead exposure and during chelation therapy. J Lab Clin Med. 1986;107(2):129-35. PMID: 3080537 [In vivo, Animal, Rat]
- Ujueta F, Lamas GA, Anstrom KJ et al. Multivitamins after myocardial infarction in patients with diabetes: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2025;185(5):540-548. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.8408 [RCT, Human, n=1000]