A resveratrol-containing nutraceutical was associated with attenuation of NT-proBNP elevation and an increase in total antioxidant capacity in dogs with cardiac disease, but did not change echocardiographic function or cardiac troponin I levels, according to a prospective study published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science. The trial enrolled 24 client-owned dogs with myxomatous mitral valve disease or dilated cardiomyopathy at a single referral hospital in South Korea.
What the study found
Dogs receiving a resveratrol-containing nutraceutical (with taurine, vitamin E, and coenzyme Q10) once daily for approximately one month showed a significantly lower percent change in NT-proBNP compared with controls (−4.51 ± 46.21% vs. +44.61 ± 62.36%, P = 0.024). Total antioxidant capacity increased in the treatment group and fell in controls (7.85 ± 7.07% vs. −8.00 ± 5.31%, P < 0.0001). No significant between-group differences were observed for cardiac troponin I, global longitudinal strain, or malondialdehyde. A significant negative association was observed between changes in total antioxidant capacity and NT-proBNP (r = −0.471, P = 0.020). No clinically relevant adverse effects were observed.
How the study was built
This was a prospective, non-randomized, open-label study. Twenty-four client-owned dogs with naturally occurring cardiac disease were allocated to a treatment group (n = 12) or a control group (n = 12) based on owner consent and clinical circumstances. Dogs in the treatment group received a resveratrol-containing nutraceutical once daily for approximately one month, while control dogs received standard cardiac medications without nutraceutical supplementation. The product was administered according to manufacturer dosing guidelines: dogs weighing 1-5 kg received one 500 mg capsule daily, and dogs weighing 5-10 kg received two capsules daily. Each capsule contained resveratrol (3 mg), taurine (100 mg), vitamin E (50 mg), and coenzyme Q10 (20 mg). Cardiac biomarkers (NT-proBNP, cardiac troponin I), echocardiographic variables including global longitudinal strain, and oxidative stress markers (total antioxidant capacity, malondialdehyde) were evaluated at baseline and at approximately one month. Dogs were enrolled from March to September 2025 at a single veterinary referral hospital. All dogs remained on their prescribed cardiac medications throughout the study period, and no clinically relevant changes in medication regimens were recorded. The study was approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC, VNG-24-008-1).
This is a small, single-center, non-randomized trial. The lack of randomization means baseline differences between groups could confound the results. The open-label design means both investigators and owners knew who received the nutraceutical. The one-month duration is short for a chronic disease. The study does not tell you whether the effect persists, whether it translates to clinical outcomes, or whether it would replicate in a blinded trial. All clinical examinations, routine laboratory analyses, and echocardiographic measurements were performed by a single investigator, while TAC and MDA analyses and statistical analyses were conducted with the assistance of an external laboratory (Vet&Gene, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea). The authors note that in addition to conventional echocardiographic parameters, speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) enables quantitative assessment of myocardial deformation and provides a more sensitive evaluation of cardiac function than traditional indices such as left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) and fractional shortening (FS), and allows the detection of subtle or subclinical myocardial dysfunction (22, 23).
The number, and its error bars
The percent change in NT-proBNP was −4.51 ± 46.21% in the treatment group versus +44.61 ± 62.36% in controls (P = 0.024). Total antioxidant capacity changed by 7.85 ± 7.07% in the treatment group versus −8.00 ± 5.31% in controls (P < 0.0001). The correlation between changes in total antioxidant capacity and NT-proBNP was r = −0.471 (P = 0.020). The source reports no significant between-group differences for cardiac troponin I, global longitudinal strain, or malondialdehyde.
The standard deviations are wide. The study does not report confidence intervals for the group differences.
What the authors say it cannot tell you
The authors state that further studies with larger populations and longer follow-up are needed. They describe the findings as preliminary and exploratory, from a pilot study. The abstract does not state other specific limitations, which is itself a limitation, a reader of the abstract alone does not know what confounders were measured, what baseline differences existed between groups, or what the authors considered the study's weaknesses.
Who paid for it
The abstract does not state who funded the study or what conflicts of interest were declared. The product tested (Rx H) is manufactured by Pharmaru Co. Ltd. Republic of Korea, but the abstract does not say whether Pharmaru funded the work.
What this means for your practice
VeterinaryPracticeNow's read, not the study's. Everything in this section is our editorial interpretation for practice owners. The study does not claim any of it.
This is the study an owner will forward you after reading a supplement-company Instagram post, so you need to know what it actually showed and what it didn't. The NT-proBNP attenuation is real in this sample, but it's a biomarker change over one month, not a survival benefit or a delay in heart failure. The study did not measure clinical outcomes, no change in cough, exercise tolerance, time to decompensation, or lifespan. The echocardiographic function didn't change, and neither did the marker of myocardial injury. What changed was a stress peptide and an antioxidant panel.
The non-randomized design is the part that matters most for the conversation with the owner. Dogs whose owners chose the nutraceutical group may have been different at baseline in ways the study didn't measure, more engaged owners, better medication compliance, different disease severity within the inclusion criteria. That's not a fatal flaw for a pilot study, but it means you can't tell the owner this supplement was the reason for the NT-proBNP difference.
If this kind of evidence breakdown is useful, subscribe to VeterinaryPracticeNow, we decode one study like this every week.
If an owner asks whether to add this product, our read is that this study suggests a biomarker signal worth watching, but it's not evidence of clinical benefit. The product tested was one specific formulation at one specific dose in one specific population. The same ingredients appear in other formulations, but this study tested one product. A different product is a different experiment.