 |
|
Adult Bone Marrow–Derived Cells for Cardiac RepairA Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Ahmed Abdel-Latif, MD;
Roberto Bolli, MD;
Imad M. Tleyjeh, MD, MSc;
Victor M. Montori, MD, MSc;
Emerson C. Perin, MD;
Carlton A. Hornung, PhD, MPH;
Ewa K. Zuba-Surma, PhD;
Mouaz Al-Mallah, MD;
Buddhadeb Dawn, MD
Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(10):989-997.
ABSTRACT
| |
Background The results from small clinical studies suggest that therapy with adult bone marrow (BM)–derived cells (BMCs) reduces infarct size and improves left ventricular function and perfusion. However, the effects of BMC transplantation in patients with ischemic heart disease remains unclear.
Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (through July 2006) for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies of BMC transplantation to treat ischemic heart disease. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis across eligible studies measuring the same outcomes.
Results Eighteen studies (N = 999 patients) were eligible. The adult BMCs included BM mononuclear cells, BM mesenchymal stem cells, and BM-derived circulating progenitor cells. Compared with controls, BMC transplantation improved left ventricular ejection fraction (pooled difference, 3.66%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.93% to 5.40%; P<.001); reduced infarct scar size (–5.49%; 95% CI, –9.10% to –1.88%; P = .003); and reduced left ventricular end-systolic volume (–4.80 mL; 95% CI, –8.20 to –1.41 mL; P = .006).
Conclusions The available evidence suggests that BMC transplantation is associated with modest improvements in physiologic and anatomic parameters in patients with both acute myocardial infarction and chronic ischemic heart disease, above and beyond conventional therapy. Therapy with BMCs seems safe. These results support conducting large randomized trials to evaluate the impact of BMC therapy vs the standard of care on patient-important outcomes.
INTRODUCTION
Ischemic heart disease (IHD) is a major cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide and accounts for approximately 20% of all deaths in the United States.1-3 Despite significant advances in medical therapy and interventional strategy, the prognosis of millions of patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and ischemic cardiomyopathy remains dismal.4-5 Although the underlying mechanism remains controversial, numerous studies in animals have documented that transplantation of bone marrow (BM)–derived cells (BMCs) following acute MI and in ischemic cardiomyopathy is associated with a reduction in infarct scar size and improvements in left ventricular (LV) function and perfusion.6 In humans, transplantation of BMCs and BM-derived circulating progenitor cells (CPCs) in patients with acute MI as well as chronic IHD has yielded similar encouraging results.7-8
However, these studies in humans are heterogeneous in their methods and have yielded disparate results. These studies have each enrolled a small number of patients and have fallen short of providing conclusive results. Thus, the extent to which BMC transplantation can improve outcomes in patients with IHD remains unclear. To our knowledge, there are no comprehensive syntheses of these data. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis to critically evaluate and summarize the potential therapeutic benefits of BMC transplantation for cardiac repair in patients with IHD.
METHODS
REVIEW QUESTION AND STUDY PROTOCOL
The review question was to what extent does BMC transplantation affect cardiovascular outcomes in patients with IHD? We report this protocol-driven systematic review according to the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE)9 and Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM)10 statements.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Two reviewers (A.A.-L. and I.M.T.) judged eligibility of studies in duplicate and independently. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies examining the effects of BMC transplantation on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with IHD. Because cytokines may exert cardiovascular effects, we excluded studies of cardiac repair solely via the mobilization of endogenous BMCs with systemic administration of cytokines.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched MEDLINE (January 1980 to July 2006), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (July 2006), EMBASE (January 1980 to July 2006), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health) (January 1982 to July 2006), the US Food and Drug Administration Web site (http://www.fda.gov), and BIOSIS Previews (January 1980 to July 2006) using the following database-appropriate terms: coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, stem cells, progenitor cells, bone marrow, circulating progenitor cells, myocardial regeneration, and cardiac repair. We sought additional studies by reviewing the reference lists of eligible studies and relevant review articles. The complete search strategy is available on request from the authors.
DATA ABSTRACTION
Two reviewers (A.A.-L. and I.M.T.) working in duplicate and independently used a standardized form to abstract the data from each study. The corresponding author (B.D.) solved disagreements that could not be solved by consensus. When necessary, LV end-diastolic volume was estimated from LV end-diastolic volume index, and infarct volume/mass was converted to infarct size expressed as a percentage of LV by calculating total LV myocardial volume from LV mass index. Data from echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging were considered equivalent. When both echocardiographic and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging functional data were available, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging data were preferentially used.
QUALITY ASSESSMENT
We used the criteria by Jüni et al11 to ascertain the methodological quality of included randomized trials11 and a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale12 to assess the quality of cohort studies.
DATA ANALYSIS
Meta-analyses
The main outcomes of our review were change from baseline in mean LV ejection fraction, infarct scar size, LV end-systolic volume, and LV end-diastolic volume. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses to pool these outcomes across included studies, estimating weighted mean differences between BMC-treated patients and control patients and their associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We estimated the proportion of between-study inconsistency due to true differences between studies (rather than differences due to random error or chance) using the I2 statistic,13 with values of 25%, 50%, and 75% considered low, moderate, and high, respectively. Funnel plots graphically explored publication bias. We used RevMan version 4.2.7 (Cochrane Collaboration, 2004) for these analyses.
Subgroup Analyses
We conducted planned subgroup analyses and tested for treatment-subgroup interactions. Planned subgroups comprised the types of study design (RCTs vs cohort studies); the clinical scenario in which BMCs were used (acute MI vs chronic IHD); timing of BMC transplantation after MI and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (<5 days vs within 5-30 days); the number of cells injected (above vs below the median of 80 x 106 BMCs used in the eligible studies); and the population of BMCs used (BM mononuclear cells vs nonmononuclear cells, including mesenchymal stem cells and BM-derived circulating progenitor cells). Because most of the included studies used the intracoronary route for BMC transplantation, the impact of the route of transplantation on outcomes could not be assessed.
RESULTS
SEARCH RESULTS
Of 213 articles retrieved during the initial search (Figure 1), 81 were not reports of original investigations (review articles and editorials), 95 were conducted in animals, 6 used mobilization rather than transplantation of BMCs, 6 lacked control groups, and 7 were performed in vitro. Eighteen studies (12 RCTs and 6 cohort studies) with a total of 999 patients were eligible for review. The interreviewer agreement on study eligibility was 100%.
|
|
|
|
Figure 1. Flow diagram of eligible studies of bone marrow–derived cells (BMCs) transplantation in patients with acute myocardial infarction and chronic ischemic heart disease. RCTs indicates randomized controlled trials.
|
|
|
STUDY CHARACTERISTICS
Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of all studies included in our meta-analysis. Notably, the sample size in each study was relatively small (range, 20-204 patients; median, 36 patients), and the follow-up duration was relatively short (range, 3-18 months; median, 4 months). There was considerable heterogeneity in the timing of cell transplantation after MI or percutaneous coronary intervention (range, 1 day to 81 months; median, 9.8 days) and in the number of BMCs used (range, 2 x 106 to 60 x 109 cells [median, 80 x 106 BMCs]).
|
|
|
|
Table 1. Characteristics of Studies Included in the Meta-analysis
|
|
|
STUDY QUALITY
Table 2 describes the methodological quality of the RCTs, and Table 3 describes the quality of the cohort studies. All cohort studies and at least 6 RCTs failed to blind participants and caregivers, and at least 2 RCTs and 3 cohort studies failed to blind outcome assessors. The follow-up was complete in all eligible studies. The interreviewer agreement on these quality domains was greater than 90%.
|
|
|
|
Table 2. Quality Assessment Scale for Randomized Controlled Trials Included in the Meta-analysis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 3. Modified Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale12 for Cohort Studies Included in the Meta-analysis
|
|
|
META-ANALYSES AND EFFICACY
Compared with control, BMC transplantation improved LV ejection fraction by 3.66% (95% CI, 1.93% to 5.40%; [I2 = 71%; P<.001]; Figure 2), reduced infarct scar size by 5.49% (95% CI, –9.10% to –1.88% [I2 = 66%; P = .003]; Figure 3); reduced LV end-systolic volume by 4.80 mL (95% CI, –8.20 to –1.41 mL; [I2 = 0%; P = .006]; Figure 4); and reduced LV end-diastolic volume by 1.92 mL (95% CI, –6.31 to 2.47 [I2 = 0%; P = .39]; Figure 5). We drew funnel plots to seek evidence of publication bias: where inconsistency was high, the funnel plots were not interpretable; where inconsistency was low, the funnel plots were inconclusive (available at: http://www.louisville.edu/medschool/medicine/cardiology/Archinternmed_2007_supplemental_data.pdf).
|
|
|
|
Figure 2. Forest plot of unadjusted difference in mean (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients treated with bone marrow–derived cells (BMCs) compared with controls. The figure shows the summary of cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Transplantation with BMCs resulted in a 3.66% (95% CI, 1.93% to 5.40%) increase in mean LVEF. The overall effect was statistically significant in favor of BMC therapy. AMI indicates acute myocardial infarction; CPCs, circulating progenitor cells; OMI, old myocardial infarction; and WMD, weighted mean difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 3. Forest plot of unadjusted difference in mean (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) change in infarct scar size in patients treated with bone marrow–derived cells (BMCs) compared with controls. The figure shows the summary of cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Transplantation with BMCs resulted in a 5.49% (95% CI, –9.10% to –1.88%) decrease in mean infarct scar size. The overall effect was statistically significant in favor of BMC therapy. WMD indicates weighted mean difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 4. Forest plot of unadjusted difference in mean (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) change in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) in patients treated with bone marrow–derived cells (BMCs) compared with controls. The figure shows the summary of cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Transplantation of BMCs resulted in a 4.80-mL (95% CI, –8.20 to –1.41 mL) decrease in LVESV. The overall effect was statistically significant in favor of BMC therapy. AMI indicates acute myocardial infarction; CPCs, circulating progenitor cells; OMI, old myocardial infarction; and WMD, weighted mean difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 5. Forest plot of unadjusted difference in mean (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) change in left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) in patients treated with bone marrow–derived cells (BMCs) compared with controls. The figure shows the summary of cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). BMC transplantation resulted in a 1.92 mL (95% CI, –6.31 to 2.47) decrease in mean LVEDV. The overall effect was in favor of BMC therapy (not statistically significant). AMI indicates acute myocardial infarction; CPCs, circulating progenitor cells; OMI, old myocardial infarction; and WMD, weighted mean difference.
|
|
|
SUBGROUP ANALYSES AND SAFETY
We did not find any treatment-subgroup interaction through any of our planned subgroup analyses (Table 4).
|
|
|
|
Table 4. Subgroup Analysis Examining the Impact of Study Design, Underlying Type of Cardiomyopathy, Timing of Transplantation, Number of BMCs Transplanted, and Type of BMCs Transplanted on Outcome Variables
|
|
|
The injection of BMCs was found to be safe without significantly greater risk of major local or systemic complications. Except for Bartunek et al,15 who reported a higher incidence of in-stent restenosis in the BM mononuclear cell–treated group (9 of 19 patients vs 4 of 16 patients in the control group), the rate of restenosis was comparable among BMC-treated and control patients. The incidence of other complications, such as recurrent angina, MI, and sustained or nonsustained supraventricular or ventricular arrhythmias, was not significantly different between BMC-treated patients and controls. A supplemental table of reported incidence of complications in BMC-treated patients and controls is available at: http://www.Louisville.edu/medschool/medicine/cardiology/Archinternmed_2007_supplemental_data.pdf.
COMMENT
This systematic review and meta-analysis, the first, to our knowledge, to comprehensively summarize the available evidence of BMC transplantation in patients with IHD, indicates that BMC transplantation in patients with IHD is apparently safe and leads to modest benefits beyond those achieved with revascularization and conventional pharmacotherapy. Our results indicate that BMC transplantation may improve LV ejection fraction, infarct scar size, and LV end-systolic volume. However, the mechanisms explaining these benefits remain unclear.
Although the plasticity of adult stem cells remains debatable, extensive data from animal models indicate that BMCs are capable of differentiating into cells of cardiac and vascular lineages.32-38 Bone marrow–derived mesenchymal stem cells, mononuclear cells, and circulating endothelial progenitor cells have all been shown to differentiate into cardiomyocytes both in vitro and in vivo.7 Nevertheless, tracking cellular differentiation after transplantation in humans remains particularly difficult. Another potential mechanism is that transplanted BMCs may secrete a variety of growth factors and cytokines,39 thereby enhancing myocyte survival following ischemic injury and facilitating the migration of resident cardiac stem cells40 to the site of injury and their reparative activity. The finding of infarct scar size reduction with BMC therapy may signify new myocyte formation, superior preservation of existing myocytes, or both following BMC transplantation.
Beyond these mechanistic considerations, some technical issues remain unclear, such as the optimal number of BMCs, the optimal timing and route of transplantation, and the most effective type of BMC. Since only a small fraction of BMCs are retained in the myocardium following injection,41 we analyzed the pooled data based on the number of cells transplanted. There were no significant differences in outcomes between the groups that received less or more than the median number of cells. Although somewhat surprising, these findings perhaps underscore the importance of selective injection of the most efficacious cell subpopulation.
Furthermore, the impact of cell number may be affected by the timing42 and route41 of transplantation, both of which may influence cell retention. The retention of injected endothelial progenitor cells was much lower in sham-operated nude rats compared with nude rats 24 hours after acute MI.42 Furthermore, the benefits of BMC injection in the first few days after acute MI may be jeopardized by the local inflammation that renders the myocardium a hostile environment for the injected cells. In the Reinfusion of Enriched Progenitor Cells And Infarct Remodeling in Acute Myocardial Infarction (REPAIR-AMI) trial, the authors stratified data according to the time of BMC injection after acute MI.28 While there was no correlation between the timing of the procedure and LV contractile recovery in the placebo group, a significant correlation was observed in the BMC-treated group. Transplantation of BMCs was more beneficial when performed 5 days or later after acute MI.28 In our meta-analysis, injection of BMCs in the 5- to 30-day window resulted in a more than 3-fold greater reduction in infarct size and greater improvement in LV end-systolic volume compared with injection in the first 5 days after acute MI and/or percutaneous coronary intervention. Because the overall change in LV end-diastolic volume was not different between BMC-treated and control groups, a change in LV end-systolic volume may represent an improvement in global LV function. However, none of these interactions reached statistical significance, and the importance of these findings remains uncertain at this time. This lack of subgroup-treatment interaction may have resulted from a small number of studies with a small number of patients. Future meta-analyses with larger patient numbers or large randomized trials may identify potential interactions between treatment effects and the timing of BMC injection.
It is important to note that the majority of studies included in our review used unfractionated BM mononuclear cells18, 20, 23-26,28-30 and that BMC transplantation was reportedly safe in these studies. Although intracoronary injection of CD133+ BM mononuclear cells was associated with an increased incidence of in-stent restenosis,15 no other major adverse effects were noted in studies using different BMC populations. This safety profile of BMC transplantation as reported in these studies with follow-up durations of up to 18 months supports conducting further investigation of therapeutic efficacy. The possibility that reporting bias may be affecting the otherwise favorable safety picture emerging from our review, however, demands caution.
The duration of follow-up in the studies included in this meta-analysis was relatively short. Although the Transplantation of Progenitor Cells and Regeneration Enhancement in Acute Myocardial Infarction (TOPCARE-AMI) trial showed persistent benefits after 12 months of BMC and circulating progenitor cell therapy,43 a longer follow-up of 18 months failed to demonstrate statistically significant improvements with cell therapy in the Bone Marrow Transfer to Enhance ST-Elevation Infarct Regeneration (BOOST) study.24 Whether the benefits of BMC therapy are ephemeral remains to be assessed in larger trials with longer follow-up duration (eg, 5 years). Moreover, a single dose of BMCs may not be sufficient for myocardial repair, and repeated infusions may result in sustained benefits over a longer time frame, but this remains speculative. Genetic modifications of BMCs prior to transplantation may also potentially improve their regenerative capability.44 These avenues may be explored in future trials. Overall, our findings support the recent consensus statement on the use of autologous adult stem cells for cardiac repair by the task force of the European Society of Cardiology that called for a pragmatic approach for demonstrating the efficacy of stem cell therapy in myocardial repair in humans.45
Limitations in study quality (namely, lack of blinding), unexplained between-study inconsistency, sparse evidence, and indirectness of the outcomes (ie, exclusive reliance on surrogate outcomes) weaken the inferences. The methods for evaluating LV function, the type of BMC used, and the interval between acute MI and/or percutaneous coronary intervention and BMC transplantation varied among the included studies (Table 1), all of which are potential sources of heterogeneity. However, the consistency of the beneficial effect of BMCs in most of the prespecified primary end points and subgroups suggests that the association is valid. The fact that the beneficial effect of BMCs persisted across different study designs, BMC lines, timings and routes of transplantation, and clinical scenarios suggest that the association can cautiously be generalized to different patient populations.
We believe that combining data from RCTs and cohort studies was justified because for both designs patients were followed prospectively, accurate methods were used to assess the primary end points, and few patients if any were lost to follow-up. Importantly, the results were consistent even when the analysis was restricted to RCTs or cohort studies alone (Table 4 and Figures 2-5), strengthening the fact that the results of the meta-analysis are cautiously generalizable.
In conclusion, the results of our systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that BMC transplantation in patients with acute MI as well as chronic IHD is reportedly safe and is associated with modest improvements in LV ejection fraction, infarct scar size, and LV end-systolic volume, beyond those achieved with state-of-the-art therapy; however, there was no significant effect on LV end-diastolic volume. Although the benefits are modest, our results support the organization, funding, and conduct of larger randomized trials of BMC therapy designed to critically evaluate the long-term impact of BMC therapy on patient-important outcomes in patients with IHD.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Correspondence: Buddhadeb Dawn, MD, Division of Cardiology, 550 S Jackson St, Ambulatory Care Building, Third Floor, Louisville, KY 40292 (buddha{at}louisville.edu).
Accepted for Publication: January 24, 2007.
Author Contributions: Drs Abdel-Latif and Dawn had full access to all of the data in this study and take responsibility for data integrity and the accuracy of data analysis. Study concept and design: Abdel-Latif, Dawn, Bolli, Tleyjeh, and Hornung. Acquisition of data: Abdel-Latif, Tleyjeh, Perin, Zuba-Surma, Bolli, and Dawn. Analysis and interpretation of data: Abdel-Latif, Tleyjeh, Montori, Hornung, Perin, Bolli, Dawn, and Al-Mallah. Drafting of the manuscript: Abdel-Latif, Dawn, Zuba-Surma, Tleyjeh, Montori, Bolli, and Al-Mallah. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Dawn, Bolli, Montori, Abdel-Latif, Tleyjeh, Hornung, and Perin. Statistical analysis: Abdel-Latif, Montori, Tleyjeh, Hornung, and Dawn. Obtained funding: Bolli and Dawn. Administrative, technical, or material support: Bolli and Dawn. Study supervision: Dawn, Bolli, Hornung, and Perin.
Financial Disclosure: None reported.
Funding/Support: This meta-analysis and publication was supported in part by grants R01 HL-72410, HL-55757, HL-68088, HL-70897, HL-76794, and HL-78825 from the National Institutes of Health.
Additional Information: A supplementary table (reported incidence of complications in BMC-treated patients and controls) and figure (funnel plot [according to outcomes] for studies included in the meta-analysis) are available at: http://www.louisville.edu/medschool/medicine/cardiology/Archinternmed_2007_supplemental_data.pdf.
Author Affiliations: Division of Cardiology and the Institute of Molecular Cardiology (Drs Abdel-Latif, Bolli, Zuba-Surma, and Dawn) and Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, School of Public Health and Information Sciences (Dr Hornung), University of Louisville, Louisville, Ky; Knowledge and Encounter Research Unit, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minn (Drs Tleyjeh and Montori); King Fahd Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (Dr Tleyjeh); Department of Cardiology, University of Texas, Houston (Dr Perin); and Division of Cardiovascular Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (Dr Al-Mallah).
REFERENCES
| |
1. Miller TD, Christian TF, Hopfenspirger MR, Hodge DO, Gersh BJ, Gibbons RJ. Infarct size after acute myocardial infarction measured by quantitative tomographic 99mtc sestamibi imaging predicts subsequent mortality. Circulation. 1995;92:334-341.
FREE FULL TEXT
2. Myerburg RJ. Sudden cardiac death: exploring the limits of our knowledge. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2001;12:369-381.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
3. Pfeffer MA, Braunwald E. Ventricular remodeling after myocardial infarction: experimental observations and clinical implications. Circulation. 1990;81:1161-1172.
FREE FULL TEXT
4. Levy D, Kenchaiah S, Larson MG; et al. Long-term trends in the incidence of and survival with heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1397-1402.
FREE FULL TEXT
5. Roger VL, Weston SA, Redfield MM; et al. Trends in heart failure incidence and survival in a community-based population. JAMA. 2004;292:344-350.
FREE FULL TEXT
6. Dawn B, Bolli R. Adult bone marrow–derived cells: regenerative potential, plasticity, and tissue commitment. Basic Res Cardiol. 2005;100:494-503.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
7. Dawn B, Zuba-Surma E, Abdel-Latif A, Tiwari S, Bolli R. Cardiac stem cell therapy for myocardial regeneration: a clinical perspective. Minerva Cardioangiol. 2005;53:549-564.
PUBMED
8. Wollert KC, Drexler H. Clinical applications of stem cells for the heart. Circ Res. 2005;96:151-163.
FREE FULL TEXT
9. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC; et al, Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) Group. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA. 2000;283:2008-2012.
FREE FULL TEXT
10. Moher D, Cook J, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup D. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet. 1999;354:1896-1900.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
11. Jüni P, Altman D, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ. 2001;323:42-46.
FREE FULL TEXT
12. Wells G, Shea B, O'Connell D; et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analysis. Ottawa, Ontario: The Ottawa Health Research Institute. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/nosgen.doc. Accessed March 11, 2006.13. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysis. BMJ. 2003;327:557-560.
FREE FULL TEXT
14. Assmus B, Honold J, Schachinger V; et al. Transcoronary transplantation of progenitor cells after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:1222-1232.
FREE FULL TEXT
15. Bartunek J, Vanderheyden M, Vandekerckhove B; et al. Intracoronary injection of CD133-positive enriched bone marrow progenitor cells promotes cardiac recovery after recent myocardial infarction: feasibility and safety. Circulation. 2005;112(suppl):I178-I183.
ISI
| PUBMED
16. Chen SL, Fang WW, Ye F; et al. Effect on left ventricular function of intracoronary transplantation of autologous bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 2004;94:92-95.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
17. Erbs S, Linke A, Adams V; et al. Transplantation of blood-derived progenitor cells after recanalization of chronic coronary artery occlusion: first randomized and placebo-controlled study. Circ Res. 2005;97:756-762.
FREE FULL TEXT
18. Ge J, Li Y, Qian J; et al. Efficacy of emergent transcatheter transplantation of stem cells for treatment of acute myocardial infarction (TCT-STAMI). [published online ahead of print June 14, 2006] Heart. 2006;92:1764-1767.
FREE FULL TEXT
19. 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 trial. Circulation. 2006;114(suppl):I101-I107.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
20. Janssens S, Dubois C, Bogaert J; et al. Autologous bone marrow–derived stem-cell transfer in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2006;367:113-121.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
21. Kang H, Lee H, Na S; et al. Differential effect of intracoronary infusion of mobilized peripheral blood stem cells by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on left ventricular function and remodeling in patients with acute myocardial infarction versus old myocardial infarction: the MAGIC Cell-3-DES randomized, controlled trial. Circulation. 2006;114(suppl):I145-I151.
ISI
| PUBMED
22. Katritsis DG, Sotiropoulou PA, Karvouni E; et al. Transcoronary transplantation of autologous mesenchymal stem cells and endothelial progenitors into infarcted human myocardium. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2005;65:321-329.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
23. Lunde K, Solheim S, Aakhus S; et al. Intracoronary injections of mononuclear bone marrow cells in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:1199-1209.
FREE FULL TEXT
24. Meyer GP, Wollert KC, Lotz J; et al. Intracoronary bone marrow cell transfer after myocardial infarction: eighteen months' follow-up data from the randomized, controlled BOOST (BOne marrOw transfer to enhance ST-elevation infarct regeneration) trial. Circulation. 2006;113:1287-1294.
FREE FULL TEXT
25. Mocini D, Staibano M, Mele L; et al. Autologous bone marrow mononuclear cell transplantation in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. Am Heart J. 2006;151:192-197.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
26. Perin EC, Dohmann HF, Borojevic R; et al. Improved exercise capacity and ischemia 6 and 12 months after transendocardial injection of autologous bone marrow mononuclear cells for ischemic cardiomyopathy. Circulation. 2004;110(suppl 1):II213-II218.
ISI
| PUBMED
27. Ruan W, Pan C, Huang G, Li Y, Ge J, Shu X. Assessment of left ventricular segmental function after autologous bone marrow stem cells transplantation in patients with acute myocardial infarction by tissue tracking and strain imaging. Chin Med J (Engl). 2005;118:1175-1181.
PUBMED
28. Schächinger V, Erbs S, Elsasser A; et al. Intracoronary bone marrow–derived progenitor cells in acute myocardial in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:1210-1221.
FREE FULL TEXT
29. Strauer BE, Brehm M, Zeus T; et al. Repair of infarcted myocardium by autologous intracoronary mononuclear bone marrow cell transplantation in humans. Circulation. 2002;106:1913-1918.
FREE FULL TEXT
30. Strauer BE, Brehm M, Zeus T; et al. Regeneration of human infarcted heart muscle by intracoronary autologous bone marrow cell transplantation in chronic coronary artery disease: the IACT Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:1651-1658.
FREE FULL TEXT
31. Li ZQ, Zhang M, Jing YZ; et al. The clinical study of autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation by intracoronory infusion in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). [published online ahead of print July 5, 2006] Int J Cardiol. 2007;115:52-56.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
32. Makino S, Fukuda K, Miyoshi S; et al. Cardiomyocytes can be generated from marrow stromal cells in vitro. J Clin Invest. 1999;103:697-705.
ISI
| PUBMED
33. Tomita S, Li RK, Weisel RD; et al. Autologous transplantation of bone marrow cells improves damaged heart function. Circulation. 1999;100(suppl):II247-II256.
PUBMED
34. Orlic D, Kajstura J, Chimenti S; et al. Mobilized bone marrow cells repair the infarcted heart, improving function and survival. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98:10344-10349.
FREE FULL TEXT
35. Toma C, Pittenger MF, Cahill KS, Byrne BJ, Kessler PD. Human mesenchymal stem cells differentiate to a cardiomyocyte phenotype in the adult murine heart. Circulation. 2002;105:93-98.
FREE FULL TEXT
36. Kawada H, Fujita J, Kinjo K; et al. Nonhematopoietic mesenchymal stem cells can be mobilized and differentiate into cardiomyocytes after myocardial infarction. Blood. 2004;104:3581-3587.
FREE FULL TEXT
37. Hattan N, Kawaguchi H, Ando K; et al. Purified cardiomyocytes from bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells produce stable intracardiac grafts in mice. Cardiovasc Res. 2005;65:334-344.
FREE FULL TEXT
38. Orlic D, Kajstura J, Chimenti S; et al. Bone marrow cells regenerate infarcted myocardium. Nature. 2001;410:701-705.
FULL TEXT
| PUBMED
39. Urbich C, Aicher A, Heeschen C; et al. Soluble factors released by endothelial progenitor cells promote migration of endothelial cells and cardiac resident progenitor cells. J Mol Cell Cardiol. 2005;39:733-742.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
40. Beltrami AP, Barlucchi L, Torella D; et al. Adult cardiac stem cells are multipotent and support myocardial regeneration. Cell. 2003;114:763-776.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
41. Hofmann M, Wollert KC, Meyer GP; et al. Monitoring of bone marrow cell homing into the infarcted human myocardium. Circulation. 2005;111:2198-2202.
FREE FULL TEXT
42. Aicher A, Brenner W, Zuhayra M; et al. Assessment of the tissue distribution of transplanted human endothelial progenitor cells by radioactive labeling. Circulation. 2003;107:2134-2139.
FREE FULL TEXT
43. Assmus B, Schachinger V, Teupe C; et al. Transplantation of Progenitor Cells and Regeneration Enhancement in Acute Myocardial Infarction (TOPCARE-AMI). Circulation. 2002;106:3009-3017.
FREE FULL TEXT
44. Mangi AA, Noiseux N, Kong D; et al. Mesenchymal stem cells modified with Akt prevent remodeling and restore performance of infarcted hearts. Nat Med. 2003;9:1195-1201.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
45. Bartunek J, Dimmeler S, Drexler H; et al. The consensus of the task force of the European Society of Cardiology concerning the clinical investigation of the use of autologous adult stem cells for repair of the heart. Eur Heart J. 2006;27:1338-1340.
FREE FULL TEXT
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Cardiac repair and regeneration: the Rubik's cube of cell therapy for heart disease
Boudoulas and Hatzopoulos
DMM 2009;2:344-358.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Randomized controlled trial on the cardioprotective effect of bone marrow cells in patients undergoing coronary bypass graft surgery
Lai et al.
Eur Heart J 2009;0:ehp262v1-ehp262.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Add Some Fat to Vascular Progenitor Cell Therapy
Saif et al.
Circ. Res. 2009;104:1330-1332.
FULL TEXT
Robust Functional Vascular Network Formation In Vivo by Cooperation of Adipose Progenitor and Endothelial Cells
Traktuev et al.
Circ. Res. 2009;104:1410-1420.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The BALANCE Study: clinical benefit and long-term outcome after intracoronary autologous bone marrow cell transplantation in patients with acute myocardial infarction.
Yousef et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;53:2262-2269.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Long-term outcome of stem cell therapy for acute myocardial infarction: right results, wrong reasons.
Forrester et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;53:2270-2272.
FULL TEXT
A heart full of stem cells: the spectrum of myocardial progenitor cells in the postnatal heart
Stamm et al.
Ther Adv Cardiovasc Dis 2009;3:215-229.
ABSTRACT
Intracoronary infusion of bone marrow-derived selected CD34+CXCR4+ cells and non-selected mononuclear cells in patients with acute STEMI and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction: results of randomized, multicentre Myocardial Regeneration by Intracoronary Infusion of Selected Population of Stem Cells in Acute Myocardial Infarction (REGENT) Trial
Tendera et al.
Eur Heart J 2009;30:1313-1321.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Premature senescence of highly proliferative endothelial progenitor cells is induced by tumor necrosis factor-{alpha} via the p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway
Zhang et al.
FASEB J. 2009;23:1358-1365.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
An acellular matrix-bound ligand enhances the mobilization, recruitment and therapeutic effects of circulating progenitor cells in a hindlimb ischemia model
Suuronen et al.
FASEB J. 2009;23:1447-1458.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Release of proinflammatory mediators and expression of proinflammatory adhesion molecules by endothelial progenitor cells
Zhang et al.
Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol. 2009;296:H1675-H1682.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Stem Cell Therapy Is Proarrhythmic
Macia and Boyden
Circulation 2009;119:1814-1823.
FULL TEXT
Stem Cells Are Not Proarrhythmic: Letting the Genie out of the Bottle
Ly and Nattel
Circulation 2009;119:1824-1831.
FULL TEXT
Adult progenitor cell transplantation influences contractile performance and calcium handling of recipient cardiomyocytes
Lee et al.
Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol. 2009;296:H927-H936.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Incidence, determinants, and prognostic value of reverse left ventricular remodelling after primary percutaneous coronary intervention: results of the Acute Myocardial Infarction Contrast Imaging (AMICI) multicenter study
Funaro et al.
Eur Heart J 2009;30:566-575.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Cell therapy generates a favourable chemokine gradient for stem cell recruitment into the infarcted heart in rabbits
Lee et al.
Eur J Heart Fail 2009;11:238-245.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Where Have All the Stem Cells Gone?
Bagi and Kaley
Circ. Res. 2009;104:280-281.
FULL TEXT
Dual Angiogenic and Neurotrophic Effects of Bone Marrow-Derived Endothelial Progenitor Cells on Diabetic Neuropathy
Jeong et al.
Circulation 2009;119:699-708.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Histopathological Study of Healing After Allogenic Mesenchymal Stem Cell Delivery in Myocardial Infarction in Dogs
Vela et al.
J. Histochem. Cytochem. 2009;57:167-176.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Pravastatin Improves Function in Hibernating Myocardium by Mobilizing CD133+ and cKit+ Bone Marrow Progenitor Cells and Promoting Myocytes to Reenter the Growth Phase of the Cardiac Cell Cycle
Suzuki et al.
Circ. Res. 2009;104:255-264.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Promise of Blood- and Bone Marrow-Derived Stem Cell Transplantation for Functional Cardiac Repair Putting It in Perspective With Existing Therapy.
Reffelmann et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;53:305-308.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Cellular Cardiomyoplasty: What Have We Learned?
Kao et al.
Asian Cardiovasc. Thorac. Ann. 2009;17:89-101.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
New Paradigms of Myocardial Regeneration Post-Infarction: Tissue Preservation, Cell Environment, and Pluripotent Cell Sources
Forrester et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2009;2:1-8.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
IFATS Collection: Human Adipose Tissue-Derived Stem Cells Induce Angiogenesis and Nerve Sprouting Following Myocardial Infarction, in Conjunction with Potent Preservation of Cardiac Function
Cai et al.
Stem Cells 2009;27:230-237.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Insights into mechanisms behind arteriogenesis: what does the future hold?
van Oostrom et al.
J. Leukoc. Biol. 2008;84:1379-1391.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
"B2 or not B2?": Kinin Receptors and Endothelial Progenitor Cell Dysfunction
Ward et al.
Circ. Res. 2008;103:1202-1203.
FULL TEXT
From Genes to Regenerative Medicine: Approaches in Development
Ruel et al.
Circ. Res. 2008;103:1050-1052.
FULL TEXT
Collagen-Based Matrices Improve the Delivery of Transplanted Circulating Progenitor Cells: Development and Demonstration by Ex Vivo Radionuclide Cell Labeling and In Vivo Tracking With Positron-Emission Tomography
Zhang et al.
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2008;1:197-204.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Clinical trials in stem cell transplantation: guidelines for scientific and ethical review
Lo et al.
Clin Trials 2008;5:517-522.
ABSTRACT
Pilot Trial on Determinants of Progenitor Cell Recruitment to the Infarcted Human Myocardium
Schachinger et al.
Circulation 2008;118:1425-1432.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A Factor Underlying Late-Phase Arrhythmogenicity After Cell Therapy to the Heart: Global Downregulation of Connexin43 in the Host Myocardium After Skeletal Myoblast Transplantation
Coppen et al.
Circulation 2008;118:S138-S144.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Concise Review: Mesenchymal Stromal Cells: Potential for Cardiovascular Repair
Psaltis et al.
Stem Cells 2008;26:2201-2210.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Autologous bone marrow stem cells to treat acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review
Martin-Rendon et al.
Eur Heart J 2008;29:1807-1818.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Erythropoietin and mesenchymal stromal cells in angiogenesis and myocardial regeneration: one plus one equals three?
Ward and Stewart
Cardiovasc Res 2008;79:357-359.
FULL TEXT
Review: Endothelial progenitor cells: markers of vascular reparative capacity
Povsic and Goldschmidt-Clermont
Ther Adv Cardiovasc Dis 2008;2:199-213.
ABSTRACT
Transplantation of Bone Marrow-Derived Very Small Embryonic-Like Stem Cells Attenuates Left Ventricular Dysfunction and Remodeling After Myocardial Infarction
Dawn et al.
Stem Cells 2008;26:1646-1655.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
An Inconvenient Truth: Recognizing Individual Differences in Arteriogenesis
Rehman
Circ. Res. 2008;102:1146-1147.
FULL TEXT
The Stem Cell Movement
Smart and Riley
Circ. Res. 2008;102:1155-1168.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Management of Heart Failure: The Past, the Present, and the Future
Braunwald
Circ Heart Fail 2008;1:58-62.
FULL TEXT
Noncanonical Wnt11 Signaling Is Sufficient to Induce Cardiomyogenic Differentiation in Unfractionated Bone Marrow Mononuclear Cells
Flaherty et al.
Circulation 2008;117:2241-2252.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Stem Cell Mobilization by Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor for Myocardial Recovery After Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Meta-Analysis
Zohlnhofer et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;51:1429-1437.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Myoblast Autologous Grafting in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy (MAGIC) Trial: First Randomized Placebo-Controlled Study of Myoblast Transplantation
Menasche et al.
Circulation 2008;117:1189-1200.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Clinical Applications of Blood-Derived and Marrow-Derived Stem Cells for Nonmalignant Diseases
Burt et al.
JAMA 2008;299:925-936.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
