Document Detail

Efficacy and safety of bone marrow cell transplantation for chronic ischemic heart disease: a meta-analysis.
Jump to Full Text
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  25270584     Owner:  NLM     Status:  In-Data-Review    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
RESULTS: BMC transplantation significantly improved LVEF in patients with revascularization (3.35%, 95% CI 0.72% to 5.97%, p=0.01; I2=85%) and without revascularization (3.05%, 95% CI 0.65% to 5.45%, p=0.01; I2=86%). In patients without revascularization, BMC transplantation was associated with significantly decreased LVESV (-11.75 ml, 95% CI -17.81 ml to -5.69 ml, p=0.0001; I2=81%), and LVEDV (-7.80 ml, 95% CI -15.31 ml to -0.29 ml, p=0.04; I2=39%). Subgroup analysis showed that the route of transplantation, baseline LVEF, and type of cells delivered could influence the efficacy of BMC transplantation.
CONCLUSIONS: Autologous transplantation of BMCs was safe and effective for patients who were candidates for revascularization with CABG/PCI and those who were not. However, large clinical trials and long-term follow-up are required to confirm these benefits.
Authors:
Chun Xiao; Shijie Zhou; Yueqiang Liu; Huozhen Hu
Related Documents :
25217434 - Management strategies for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.
25207254 - Transfromation of percutaneous extracorporeal life support to paracorporeal ventricular...
25440594 - Pleiotropic effects of statin in therapy in heart failure: a review.
25355394 - Poincare indices for analyzing meditative heart rate signals.
11476194 - Comparison between the effects of pentobarbital or ketamine/nitrous oxide anesthesia on...
10722244 - Discordance between pre and post cardiac transplant diagnosis: implications for pre- an...
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article     Date:  2014-10-01
Journal Detail:
Title:  Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research     Volume:  20     ISSN:  1643-3750     ISO Abbreviation:  Med. Sci. Monit.     Publication Date:  2014  
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2014-10-01     Completed Date:  -     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  9609063     Medline TA:  Med Sci Monit     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  1768-77     Citation Subset:  IM    
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Full Text
Journal Information
Journal ID (nlm-ta): Med Sci Monit
Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Med. Sci. Monit
Journal ID (publisher-id): Medical Science Monitor
ISSN: 1234-1010
ISSN: 1643-3750
Publisher: International Scientific Literature, Inc.
Article Information
Download PDF
© Med Sci Monit, 2014
License:
Received Day: 20 Month: 7 Year: 2014
Accepted Day: 28 Month: 8 Year: 2014
collection publication date: Year: 2014
Electronic publication date: Day: 01 Month: 10 Year: 2014
Volume: 20First Page: 1768 Last Page: 1777
PubMed Id: 25270584
ID: 4199404
DOI: 10.12659/MSM.892047
Publisher Id: 892047

Efficacy and Safety of Bone Marrow Cell Transplantation for Chronic Ischemic Heart Disease: A Meta-Analysis
Chun Xiao123ABCEF*
Shijie Zhou23ABE*
Yueqiang Liu23ADE
Huozhen Hu123ABE
1College of life Science, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
2Department of Medicine, Sichuan Scientific & Cellular Biotechnology Research Institute, Chengdu, China
3Emei Mid-level Qiliping Anti-aging Research Center, Qiliping, Emei Mountain, Sichuan, China
Correspondence: Corresponding Author: Huozhen Hu, e-mail: huhuozhen@163.com
AStudy Design
BData Collection
CStatistical Analysis
DData Interpretation
EManuscript Preparation
FLiterature Search
GFunds Collection
*Chun Xiao and Shijie Zhou are the co-first authors.

Background

Chronic ischemic heart disease (CIHD) is characterized as reduced blood supply to the heart muscle due to plaque building up along the inner walls of the arteries of the heart. If not properly treated, it can lead to end-stage heart failure [1]. CIHD is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in developed countries and in some of the emerging countries. Although the application of medical therapy and coronary artery revascularization techniques (e.g., coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG] and percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]) have improved clinical outcomes, CIHD is still a leading cause of angina and congestive heart failure refractory to traditional therapies [2]. Optimal therapies for this disease should achieve clinical improvement of cardiac function by realizing myocardial regeneration and revascularization, without severe adverse effects. Therefore, stem/progenitor cells-based cell therapy has great potential due to the ability to self-renew and to differentiate into specialized cells [3].

Since 2001, transplantation of bone marrow-derived cells (BMCs), either by intracoronary or intramyocardial route, has been tested as a therapy for myocardial infarction and other ischemic heart disease [4] due to their multipotent, autologous origin and readily usable features [5]. A number of studies were launched to evaluate the effect of this therapy and some reported improved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and exercise capacity in patients with myocardial infarction or other coronary artery diseases [3,6]. Initial meta-analysis also demonstrated the safety and beneficial effects of intracoronary BMC therapy [7,8]. However, due to small sample size of the trials, the exact efficacy of BMC therapy for patients with CIHD is still unclear. Some studies even reported no significant benefits of BMC therapy compared with controls [9,10]. In addition, previous meta-analyses also found significant heterogeneity of trials included and conflicting results [1113]. Thus, it is necessary to integrate results of the latest clinical trials to perform an updated meta-analysis. The aim of this meta-analysis was to make an updated assessment of efficacy and safety of autologous transplantation of BMCs for patients with CIHD.


Material and Methods
Search strategy

This meta-analysis generally followed the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Relevant studies focusing on BMC transplantation in patients with CIHD were retrieved from PubMed, OVID, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 2000 to April 2014. The subject terms and free-text terms used for this study were: bone marrow cell, bone marrow mononuclear cell, stem cell, stromal cell, coronary artery disease, ischemic cardiomyopathy, ischemic heart disease, heart failure, myocardial ischemia, and myocardial infarction. Introduction and reference lists of included trials were manually searched to identify additional qualified studies. No language restriction was set when searching qualified studies.

Selection criteria

Studies included for meta-analysis had to meet all of the following criteria simultaneously: (1) randomized controlled trial (RCT) based on patients with chronic ischemic heart disease (CIHD); (2) cell therapy was autologous BMCs-based; (3) patients in the control arm received standard therapy; and (4) follow-up was at least 3 months. Exclusion criteria were: (1) studies provided patients cell precursors mobilized by cytokines due to the additional effect of cytokine myocardium and BMCs. In this study, CHID was defined as chronic coronary total occlusion, stable angina, refractory angina, myocardial ischemia, historical myocardial infarction, or patients with previous revascularization.

Data extraction

Two authors (CX and SZ) independently assessed eligibility of studies and extracted data from original studies. Disagreements and discrepancies were resolved through group discussion involving a third reviewer. The following information was extracted from original studies: first author, year of publication, number of patients recruited, basic information of patients (age, sex, and NYHA classification), clinical scenario, duration of follow-up, type and number of cells transplanted, route of delivery, and imaging modality. The outcomes of LV function and remodeling – primary endpoint-left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and secondary endpoints-net changes in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV), and left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) – were extracted for further meta-analysis. For studies that reported primary or secondary endpoints measured by various imaging modalities, MRI data was preferentially used due to superior accuracy. Data on the major adverse effects were extracted for assessing the safety of BMCs transplantation for CIHD patients.

Quality assessment

The methodological quality of included studies was assessed according to the method proposed by Juni et al. [14], in combination with modified Jadad score (7 point). The major quality components were: adequate method to generate randomized sequence, adequate method of allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessors, loss of participant follow-up (%), and all patients treated in assigned group.

Data analysis

RevMan 5.2 (Cochrane Collaboration) software was used for data analysis. To guarantee uniformity of outcomes, when multiple measurements of the change of primary and secondary endpoint from baseline to follow-up were available, 6-month data were obtained and used for further pooled analysis. If original data did not provide the changes in mean and SD form, the estimation method recommended by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 16.1.3 was used (Version 5.1.0, the Cochrane Collaboration, 2011). Results are summarized in the form of weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity between trials was assessed using chi-square test (χ2) and I2 statistics. P<0.1 or I2 >50% suggests a substantial level of inconsistency [15]. Primary assessment was performed with a fixed model. If significant heterogeneity was identified, the source of heterogeneity was further analyzed. If no significant clinical heterogeneity was observed, the random effects model based on Mantel-Haenszel method was used to make estimates. Otherwise, descriptive analysis was performed. Funnel plots were used to explore possible publication bias. Subgroup analysis was also performed according to type of cells (BMMNCs or MCSs), the route of cell delivery (IM or IC), and above or below average LVEF level (<35.5% or ≥35.5%). P<0.05 was considered as statistically significant.


Results
Search results

The search process is described in Supplement Figure 1. Initial retrieval yielded 1731 references, among which 1688 were excluded after reviewing the title and/or abstract. The remaining 43 trials were reviewed in detail for assessing eligibility. Among them, 11 were excluded due to non-RCT, 3 were excluded due to use of precursors mobilized by cytokine, 3 were excluded due to use of blood-derived stem cells, and 6 were excluded because LVEF data was not reported. Finally, a total of 20 trials were included for meta-analysis [6,9,10,1632].

Characteristics of included studies

The key characteristics of trials included are summarized in Supplement Table 1. All of the trials had relatively small sample size, with number of patients ranging from 14 to 109. A total of 453 patients were included in the cell therapy groups and 322 patients were included in the control groups. All trials recruited patients with CIHD, including chronic coronary total occlusion, refractory angina, ischemic heart failure, and chronic myocardial infarction. Twelve studies used PCI or CABG as the control method for revascularization and 8 studies recruited patients unsuitable for revascularization. The autologous BMCs, including both BMMNCs and MCSs, were delivered either directly through intramyocardial or intracoronary approach. Mean patient age in the intervention groups was 61.0±3.3 and in the control groups was 61.2±3.3 (p=0.88), suggesting adequate match. Follow-up ranged from 3 to 12 months. The lowest and highest average number of cell delivered was 5×106 and 6.59×108. The median LVEF of patients at baseline in the intervention group was 35.5%. A funnel plot for LVEF outcome was used to assess publication bias. The roughly symmetrical distribution pattern suggested there was no significant publication bias (Supplement Figure 2).

Quality assessment

Methodological quality of the 20 studies included is summarized in Supplement Table 2. Generally, the quality of trials included was good. According to the modified Jadad score, 14 out 20 studies scored 5 or above, which suggests relatively high quality. There was no significant difference in patient characteristics between cell therapy and standard therapy groups. All of the trials were randomized, but 6 studies did not report the method of generating a randomized sequence and 6 did not give concealing allocation method. Eighteen studies had both blinded patients and practitioners and 2 studies had only blinded patients. All these studies had blinded assessors of outcome measurement. Eighteen studies had loss of follow-up rate under 15% and 2 were over this level.

Efficacy of BMC transplantation

The primary and secondary outcome (LVEF, LVEDV, and LVESV) were pooled. Compared with standard treatment, BMC transplantation significantly improved LVEF in patients with revascularization (3.35%, 95%CI 0.72% to 5.97%, p=0.01; I2=85%) and in patients without revascularization (3.05%, 95% CI 0.65% to 5.45%, p=0.01; I2=86%). LVEF improvement was similar in these 2 groups (p=0.87) (Figure 1). LVESV and LVEDV are 2 important indicators of LV remodeling. Compared with control, BMC transplantation was associated with moderately decreased LVESV in patients with revascularization (−5.88 ml, 95% CI, −12.66 ml to 0.91 ml, p=0.09; I2=51%) and significantly decreased in patients without revascularization (−11.75 ml, 95% CI −17.81 ml to −5.69 ml, p=0.0001; I2=81%) (Figure 2). No significant difference in LVESV decrease was observed between these 2 groups (p=0.21) (Figure 2). In addition, a significant trend of decreased LVEDV was only observed in patients receiving only cell therapy (−7.80 ml, 95% CI −15.31 ml to −0.29 ml, p=0.04; I2=39%), but not in patients receiving combination of cell therapy and revascularization (−7.30, 95% CI −17.68 ml to 3.09 ml, p=0.17; I2=57%). However, the difference between these 2 groups was not significant (p=0.94) (Figure 3).

Subgroup analysis

Due to significant heterogeneity observed within groups with or without revascularization, subgroup analysis was performed to explore whether the type of revascularization intervention (CABG or PCI), the type of cell delivered, and the level of baseline LVEF influenced the efficacy of cell therapy. Table 1 summarizes the results of subgroup analysis. Compared with LVEF improvement in intracoronary route (1.00%, 95% CI −0.11% to 2.10%), the improvement in intramyocardial delivery was significantly higher (4.77%, 95% CI 4.11% to 5.44%) (p<0.00001) (Table 1). However, no significant difference was observed in LVESV and LVEDV (p=0.68 and p=0.64, respectively). When comparing the effect of cell type transplanted on LV function improvement, it was observed LVEF improvement was significantly higher in the BMMNCs group (4.33%, 95% CI 3.69% to 4.96%) than in the MCSs group (1.32%, 95% CI −0.00% to 2.65%) (p<0.00001) (Table 1). However, LVESV decrease was more evident in the MCSs group (−15.69 ml, 95% CI −17.87 ml to −13.52 ml) than in the BMNNCs group (−8.51 ml, 95% CI −14.28 ml to −2.74 ml) (p=0.02). The median LVEF of patients in 20 trials was 35.5%. LVEF increase was significantly higher in the group with higher than average LVEF (5.11%, 95% CI 4.36% to 5.86%) than the group with lower than average LVEF (1.93%, 95% CI, 1.05% to 2.81%) (p<0.00001). Changes in LVESV and LVEDV were similar in these 2 groups (p=0.23 and p=0.32, respectively) (Table 1).

Safety of BMC transplantation

Major adverse cardiovascular events reported in original studies were pooled to assess the safety of BMC transplantation (Table 2). Generally, compared with control, BMC transplantation had a similar risk ratio in ventricular arrhythmia, recurrent myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular accident as control in subgroups both with and without revascularization. However, significantly lower risk of all-cause death was observed in the subgroup without revascularization (RR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.77, P=0.01), but not in the subgroup with revascularization. No death directly related to BMC transplantation was reported in either subgroup.


Discussion

For patients with CIHD, the goal of cell therapy is to achieve coronary neovascularization- and myocardial regeneration-based cardiac structural and functional improvement. LV function impairment is an important indicator of disease prognosis. Although previous meta-analyses explored the therapeutic effects and adverse events of BMCs compared with standard therapy, due to significant heterogeneity, small number of original trials and inconsistency of the findings, it is quite necessary to add outcomes new trials for better understanding of BMCs therapy.

To date, there is no available meta-analysis that explored the efficacy of BMCs-based cell therapy between patients with revascularizable and non-revascularizable CIHD. This meta-analysis of 20 RCTs showed that autologous transplantation of BMCs was safe and effective both for patients who were candidates for revascularization with CABG/PCI and those who were not. Findings of this study also indicated that for patients with no option for revascularization, single administration of BMCs could provide compatible effect in improving LV function, including increased LVEF and decreased LVEDV and LVESV compared with patients who received a combination of cell therapy and revascularization. Subgroup analysis found that the route of transplantation, baseline LVEF, and type of cells delivered could influence the efficacy of cell therapy. We found that IM injection was more beneficial to improve LVEF compared with IC injection (4.77% vs. 1.00%, p<0.00001). This finding is consistent that of Brunskill et al., who found that cell therapy through IM injection was associated with better effect [33]. This difference might be related to the higher proportion of cells retained in the heart through IM injection than through the IC route, which was confirmed by an animal study [34] and 1 small RCT [26]. Previous studies reported that cell therapy had better effect in patients with lower baseline LVEF [13,33]. Subgroup analysis of this study also found that patients with lower than average baseline LVEF (<35.5%) had better therapeutic outcome (more LVEF improvement) than those with higher than average baseline (5.11% vs. 1.93%, p<0.00001). Furthermore, this study found that transplantation of BMMNCs had better effect in improving LVEF than did MCSs. However, due to the small number of trials based on MCSs (n=3), the reliability of this finding should be confirmed in future RCTs. As to LVEDV and LVESV, no significant difference was observed between paired subgroups. Pooled safety assessment found that cell therapy significantly decreased all-cause death in the subgroup without revascularization. Other major adverse events were similar between cell therapy and control group in both subgroups.

The mechanisms by which BMCs contribute to cardiac repair and function improvement are still not fully understood. A previous study observed that BMCs could differentiate to cardiomyocytes in infarcted areas of the heart [35]. However, this was proven to be a minor mechanism because the process of transdifferentiation occurs very rarely in this situation [36]. The role of BMCs in impaired heart tissue could be multifunctional and multifactorial. Previous studies found that BMCs and bone marrow progenitor cells could secrete a series of cytokines that activate endogenous cardiac repair, such as activating resident cardiac progenitor cells and stimulating cardiomyocyte cell-cycle re-entry [37,38]. In addition, BMCs were involved in the process of neovascularization, inhibiting apoptosis of myocardial cells, and reducing inflammation through paracrine production of cytokines and growth factors [36,39,40]. However, how these mechanisms interact with each other and whether other mechanisms are involved is not clear. The exact and detailed mechanism should be explored in future research.

This study has several limitations. As observed in previous meta-analyses, this study also found a considerable degree of between-study heterogeneity. The high level of heterogeneity is closely related to patient baseline characteristics of each trial, route of transplantation, type and number of cell delivered, and methodology used to measure LV functional indicators. For example, a recent study indicated that use of low-dose mesenchymal stem cells (approximately 20×106 cells) was associated with the best effect in LV volume and LVEF increase [41]. However, the number of cells transplanted ranged from 106 to 108 in trials included in this meta-analysis. Secondly, in subgroup analysis, few trials assessed the effect of PCI and MCSs, which resulted in incompatible pooled sample size and thus might impair the reliability of observed phenomenon. Thirdly, most of the trials included had short-term follow-up (less than 1 year). The medium to long-term effect of cell therapy is still not quite clear.


Conclusions

In conclusion, the results of this meta-analysis suggest that transplantation of BMCs is a safe and effective therapy to improve left ventricular function both for patients who were candidates for revascularization with CABG/PCI and those who were not. Large clinical trials and long-term follow-up are required to confirm the benefits.

Supplement Figure 1

The search process.


Click here for additional data file (medscimonit-20-1768-s003.png)

Supplement Figure 2

Funnel plot of publication bias.


Click here for additional data file (medscimonit-20-1768-s004.png)


Notes

fn9-medscimonit-20-1768Source of support: Self financing

References
1. Roger VL,Go AS,Lloyd-Jones DM,et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics – 2011 update: a report from the American Heart AssociationCirculationYear: 2011123e18e20921160056
2. Blecker S,Paul M,Taksler G,et al. Heart failure-associated hospitalizations in the United StatesJ Am Coll CardiolYear: 20136112596723500328
3. Burt RK,Loh Y,Pearce W,et al. Clinical applications of blood-derived and marrow-derived stem cells for nonmalignant diseasesJAMAYear: 20082999253618314435
4. Strauer BE,Brehm M,Zeus T,et al. Intracoronary, human autologous stem cell transplantation for myocardial regeneration following myocardial infarctionDtsch Med WochenschrYear: 200112693238 [in German]. 11523014
5. Dai W,Kloner RA. Bone marrow-derived cell transplantation therapy for myocardial infarction: lessons learned and future questionsAm J TransplantYear: 201111229730121929617
6. Tse HF,Thambar S,Kwong YL,et al. Prospective randomized trial of direct endomyocardial implantation of bone marrow cells for treatment of severe coronary artery diseases (PROTECT-CAD trial)Eur Heart JYear: 2007282998300517984132
7. Lalu MM,McIntyre L,Pugliese C,et al. Safety of cell therapy with mesenchymal stromal cells (SafeCell): a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trialsPloS oneYear: 20127e4755923133515
8. Sun L,Zhang T,Lan X,et al. Effects of stem cell therapy on left ventricular remodeling after acute myocardial infarction: a meta-analysisClin CardiolYear: 20103329630220513068
9. Perin EC,Silva GV,Henry TD,et al. A randomized study of transendocardial injection of autologous bone marrow mononuclear cells and cell function analysis in ischemic heart failure (FOCUS-HF)Am Heart JYear: 2011161107887 e321641354
10. Hendrikx M,Hensen K,Clijsters C,et al. Recovery of regional but not global contractile function by the direct intramyocardial autologous bone marrow transplantation: results from a randomized controlled clinical trialCirculationYear: 2006114I101716820557
11. Fisher SA,Doree C,Brunskill SJ,et al. Bone Marrow Stem Cell Treatment for Ischemic Heart Disease in Patients with No Option of Revascularization: A Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisPloS oneYear: 20138e6466923840302
12. Xu R,Ding S,Zhao Y,et al. Autologous Transplantation of Bone Marrow/Blood-Derived Cells for Chronic Ischemic Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysisCan J CardiolYear: 2014 pii: S0828-282X(14)00044-0.
13. Jeevanantham V,Butler M,Saad A,et al. Adult bone marrow cell therapy improves survival and induces long-term improvement in cardiac parameters: a systematic review and meta-analysisCirculationYear: 20121265516822730444
14. Juni P,Altman DG,Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trialsBMJYear: 2001323424611440947
15. Higgins JPT,Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Version 5.1: The Cochrane CollaborationYear: 2011
16. Heldman AW,DiFede DL,Fishman JE,et al. Transendocardial mesenchymal stem cells and mononuclear bone marrow cells for ischemic cardiomyopathy: the TAC-HFT randomized trialJAMAYear: 2014311627324247587
17. Lu M,Liu S,Zheng Z,et al. A pilot trial of autologous bone marrow mononuclear cell transplantation through grafting artery: a sub-study focused on segmental left ventricular function recovery and scar reductionInt J CardiolYear: 201316822212723478196
18. Maureira P,Tran N,Djaballah W,et al. Residual viability is a predictor of the perfusion enhancement obtained with the cell therapy of chronic myocardial infarction: a pilot multimodal imaging studyClin Nucl MedYear: 2012377384222785499
19. Patel AN,Geffner L,Vina RF,et al. Surgical treatment for congestive heart failure with autologous adult stem cell transplantation: a prospective randomized studyJ Thorac Cardiovasc SurgYear: 200513016313816308009
20. Perin EC,Willerson JT,Pepine CJ,et al. Effect of transendocardial delivery of autologous bone marrow mononuclear cells on functional capacity, left ventricular function, and perfusion in chronic heart failure: the FOCUS-CCTRN trialJAMAYear: 201230717172622447880
21. Pokushalov E,Romanov A,Chernyavsky A,et al. Efficiency of intramyocardial injections of autologous bone marrow mononuclear cells in patients with ischemic heart failure: a randomized studyJ Cardiovasc Transl ResYear: 201031606820560030
22. Stamm C,Kleine HD,Choi YH,et al. Intramyocardial delivery of CD133+ bone marrow cells and coronary artery bypass grafting for chronic ischemic heart disease: safety and efficacy studiesJ Thorac Cardiovasc SurgYear: 20071337172517320570
23. van Ramshorst J,Bax JJ,Beeres SL,et al. Intramyocardial bone marrow cell injection for chronic myocardial ischemia: a randomized controlled trialJAMAYear: 20093011997200419454638
24. Yao K,Huang R,Qian J,et al. Administration of intracoronary bone marrow mononuclear cells on chronic myocardial infarction improves diastolic functionHeartYear: 20089411475318381377
25. Zhao Q,Sun Y,Xia L,et al. Randomized study of mononuclear bone marrow cell transplantation in patients with coronary surgeryAnn Thorac SurgYear: 20088618334019021989
26. Ang KL,Chin D,Leyva F,et al. Randomized, controlled trial of intramuscular or intracoronary injection of autologous bone marrow cells into scarred myocardium during CABG versus CABG aloneNat Clin Pract Cardiovasc MedYear: 200856637018711405
27. Assmus B,Honold J,Schachinger V,et al. Transcoronary transplantation of progenitor cells after myocardial infarctionN Engl J MedYear: 200635512223216990385
28. Bartunek J,Behfar A,Dolatabadi D,et al. Cardiopoietic stem cell therapy in heart failure: the C-CURE (Cardiopoietic stem Cell therapy in heart failURE) multicenter randomized trial with lineage-specified biologicsJ Am Coll CardiolYear: 20136123293823583246
29. Perin EC,Silva GV,Zheng Y,et al. Randomized, double-blind pilot study of transendocardial injection of autologous aldehyde dehydrogenase-bright stem cells in patients with ischemic heart failureAm Heart JYear: 20121634152121 e122424012
30. Nasseri BA,Ebell W,Dandel M,et al. Autologous CD133+ bone marrow cells and bypass grafting for regeneration of ischaemic myocardium: the Cardio133 trialdaggerEur HeartJYear: 20143512637424497345
31. Patila T,Lehtinen M,Vento A,et al. Autologous bone marrow mononuclear cell transplantation in ischemic heart failure: A prospective, controlled, randomized, double-blind study of cell transplantation combined with coronary bypassJ Heart Lung TransplantYear: 2014335677424656645
32. Chen S,Liu Z,Tian N,et al. Intracoronary transplantation of autologous bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells for ischemic cardiomyopathy due to isolated chronic occluded left anterior descending arteryJ Invasive CardiolYear: 2006185525617090821
33. Brunskill SJ,Hyde CJ,Doree CJ,et al. Route of delivery and baseline left ventricular ejection fraction, key factors of bone-marrow-derived cell therapy for ischaemic heart diseaseEur J Heart FailYear: 2009118879619654139
34. Perin EC,Silva GV,Assad JA,et al. Comparison of intracoronary and transendocardial delivery of allogeneic mesenchymal cells in a canine model of acute myocardial infarctionJ Mol Cell CardiolYear: 2008444869518061611
35. Orlic D,Kajstura J,Chimenti S,et al. Bone marrow cells regenerate infarcted myocardiumNatureYear: 2001410701511287958
36. Murry CE,Soonpaa MH,Reinecke H,et al. Haematopoietic stem cells do not transdifferentiate into cardiac myocytes in myocardial infarctsNatureYear: 20044286646815034593
37. Hatzistergos KE,Quevedo H,Oskouei BN,et al. Bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells stimulate cardiac stem cell proliferation and differentiationCirc ResYear: 20101079132220671238
38. Yang S,Piao J,Jin L,et al. Does pretreatment of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells with 5-azacytidine or double intravenous infusion improve their therapeutic potential for dilated cardiomyopathy?Med Sci Monit Basic ResYear: 201319203123314418
39. Orlic D,Kajstura J,Chimenti S,et al. Bone marrow stem cells regenerate infarcted myocardiumPediatr TransplantYear: 20037Suppl 3868812603699
40. Kocher AA,Schuster MD,Szabolcs MJ,et al. Neovascularization of ischemic myocardium by human bone-marrow-derived angioblasts prevents cardiomyocyte apoptosis, reduces remodeling and improves cardiac functionNat MedYear: 200174303611283669
41. Hare JM,Fishman JE,Gerstenblith G,et al. Comparison of allogeneic vs. autologous bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells delivered by transendocardial injection in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy: the POSEIDON randomized trialJAMAYear: 201230823697923117550

Tables
[TableWrap ID: t3-medscimonit-20-1768] Supplement Table 1 

Characteristics of included studies.


Study Country Sample size (I/C) Average age (I/C) NYHA classification Duration (Mo) Gender (male%) (I/C) Revascularization Baseline LVEF (mean SD) Clinical scenario Route of transplantation (no.) No. of cells Cell type Imaging modality
Ang et al., 2008 UK 42/20 IM: 64.7/61.3; IC: 62.1/61.3 N.A. 6 86/14 CABG 25.4 (8.1) IM
28.5 (6.5) IC
R-CIHD IM(21)/IC(21) 85±56×106 IM
115±73×106 IC
BMMNC MRI
Assmus et al., 2006 Germany 35/23 60/61 1–3 3 93/7 PCI 41 (11) R-CIHD IC 205±110×106 BMMNC LVG
Chen et al., 2006 China 22/23 N.A. N.A. 12 N.A. PCI 26 (6) R-CIHD IC 5×106 MSC Echo (EF)
Heldman et al., 2013 US MSC: 22/11
BMMNC: 22/10
MSC: 57.1/60.0
BMMNC: 61.1/61.3
1–3 12 MSC: 94.7/90.9
BMMNC: 89.5/100
N.A. 35.9 (8.2) BMMNC
35.7 (9.0) MSC
N-CIHD IM ≥100×106 BMMNC/MSC MRI
Hendrikx et al., 2006 Belgium 10/10 63.2/66.8 N.A. 4 100/70 CABG 42.9 (10.3) R-CIHD IM 60.25± 31.35×106 BMMNC MRI
Lu et al., 2013 China 25/25 57/58 2–3 12 96/88 CABG 23.4 (7.1) R-CIHD IC 13.38±8.14×107 BMMNC MRI
Maureira et al., 2012 France 7/7 58/57 I: 2.1 (mean)
C: 1.9 (mean)
6 100/86 CABG 41 (8) R-CIHD IM ≥300×106 BMMNC MRI
Patel et al., 2005 Argentina 10/10 64.8/63.6 I: 3.5 C: 3.4 6 80/80 CABG 29.4 (3.6) R-CIHD IM 22×106 (median) CD34+ BMC Echo
Perin et al., 2011 America 20/10 60.5/56.3 I: 2.3 C: 2.6 6 80/50 N.A. 37.5 (8.2) N-CIHD IM 30×106 BMMNC LVG
Perin et al., 2012a America 61/31 63.95/62.32 1–3 6 92/98 N.A. 32.43 (9.23) N-CIHD IM 100×106 BMMNC Echo
Perin et al., 2012b America 10/10 58.2/57.8 I: 2.5 C: 2.6 6 90/80 N.A. 36.1(10.9) N-CIHD IM 0.29×107 ALDHbr BMC Echo/LVG
Pokushalov et al., 2010 Russia 55/54 61/62 I: 3.3 C: 3.5 12 48/46 N.A. 27.8 (3.4) N-CIHD IM 41±16×106 BMMNC Echo
Stamm et al., 2007 Germany 22/21 62/63.5 2–3 6 75/80 CABG 37.4 (8.4) R-CIHD IM 5.86×106 (median) CD133+ BMC Echo
Tse et al., 2007 China & Australia 19/9 65.2/68.9 I: 2–4
C: 2–3
6 79/88 N.A. 45.7 (8.3) N-CIHD IM 1.67±0.34×107 low
4.20±2.80×107 high
BMMNC MRI
van Ramshorst et al., 2009 Netherlands 25/25 64/62 N.A. 3 92/80 N.A. 56 (12) N-CIHD IM 98±6×106 BMMNC MRI
Yao et al., 2008 China 24/23 54.8/56.3 1–3 6 96/96 PCI 44.3 (5.5) R-CIHD IC 180×106 BMMNC MRI
Zhao et al., 2008 China 18/18 60.3/59.1 3–4 6 83.3/83.3 CABG 35.80 (7.28) R-CIHD IM 6.59±5.12×108 BMMNC Echo
Bartunek et al., 2013 Belgium/Serbia 21/15 55.7/59.5 2–3 6 95.2/91.7 N.A. 27.5 (2) N-CIHD IM >600×106 MSC Echo
Nasseri et al., 2014 Germany 30/30 61.9/62.7 1–4 6 93.3/96.7 CABG 27 (6) R-CIHD IM 11.7×106 CD133+ BMC MRI
Pätilä et al., 2014 Finland 20/19 65/64 2–3 12 95/94.7 CABG 37.2 (4) R-CIHD IM 8.4×106 (median) BMMNC MRI

tfn3-medscimonit-20-1768I – Intervention; C – control; NYHA – New York Heart Association; LVEF – left ventricular ejection fraction; N.A. – not available; R-CIHD – revascularizable chronic ischemic heart disease; IM – intramyocardial; IC – intracoronary; CABG – coronary artery bypass grafting; BMC – bone marrow cell; BMMNC – bone marrow mononuclear cell; ALDHbr – with a high level of aldehyde dehydrogenase activity; MRI – magnetic resonance imaging; Echo – echocardiography; LVG – left ventriculography.


[TableWrap ID: t4-medscimonit-20-1768] Supplement Table 2 

Methodological quality of 20 studies included.


Study Adequate method to generate randomized sequence Adequate method of allocation concealment Blinding of outcome assessors Loss of participant follow-up (%) All patients treated in assigned group Jadad Score
Ang et al., 2008 N N Y 3.3 Y 3
Assmus et al., 2006 N N Y 12 Y 3
Chen et al., 2006 N N N 13.3 Y 1
Bartunek et al., 2013 Y Y Y 0 Y 7
Hendrikx et al., 2006 Y Y Y 13 Y 6
Heldman et al., 2013 Y Y Y 4.6 Y 6
Lu et al., 2013 N N Y 16.7 Y 3
Maureira et al., 2012 Y Y N 0 Y 5
Nasseri et al., 2014 Y Y Y 10 Y 6
Patel et al., 2005 Y Y Y 0 Y 7
Pätilä et al., 2014 Y Y Y 0 Y 7
Perin et al., 2011 Y Y Y 0 Y 7
Perin et al., 2012a Y Y Y 4.7 Y 6
Perin et al., 2012b Y Y Y 0 Y 6
Pokushalov et al., 2010 Y Y Y 24.8 Y 6
Stamm et al., 2007 N N Y 7 Y 3
Tse et al., 2007 Y Y Y 3.6 Y 6
van Ramshorst et al., 2009 Y Y Y 2 Y 6
Yao et al., 2008 N N Y 0 Y 3
Zhao et al., 2008 Y Y Y 5.6 Y 6


Article Categories:
  • Review Articles

Keywords: MeSH Keywords Mesenchymal Stromal Cells, Meta-Analysis, Myocardial Ischemia.

Previous Document:  The subtelomeric region is important for chromosome recognition and pairing during meiosis.
Next Document:  Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for the control of pain during rehabilitation after tota...