ArticleCurrent treatment options in cardiovascular medicine2010
Current and future status of stem cell therapy in heart failure.
Article in Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Epicardial Transplantation of Autologous Cardiac Micrografts During Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
- Strategies for tissue engineering cardiac constructs to affect functional repair following myocardial infarction.Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 2011Review
- Heterogeneity in SDF-1 expression defines the vasculogenic potential of adult cardiac progenitor cells.PloS one · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
opinion statementAs heart transplantation and mechanical assist technology are inadequate solutions for the growing clinical epidemic of heart failure, myocardial regeneration has moved to the forefront. Multiple laboratories using a variety of cell types have demonstrated myocardial repair in different animal models. Translating these results into clinical practice through clinical trial research has thus far proved challenging. Amassing clinical evidence suggests that cell therapy is safe and offers a modest clinical benefit, but the long-term effect of such therapy as well as the overall impact on the natural progression of heart failure and, ultimately, survival are unknown. Furthermore, cost-benefit analysis of such therapy, which will likely become increasingly important as health care reform takes shape, has not been examined to any degree. Although scientific competition has driven this field with remarkable speed, it is also responsible for its fragmentation, with multiple avenues of pursuit happening in parallel. Consensus opinion is absent with respect to mechanism of action, effectiveness of cell type or delivery method, timing and dosing of cell therapy, adjunctive medication or therapies, and optimum cell type or combination of cell types. Nevertheless, in the arena of clinical medicine, ease of cell availability and cell delivery has proved paramount to cell type selection. The flourish of clinical trials investigating bone marrow-derived stem cells (BMSCs) delivered via direct intracoronary injection testifies to this opinion. The modest improvements in cardiac function demonstrated in trials to date will likely not have a significant clinical impact. We expect, however, that scientific competition will make continued contributions over the next decade that will propel the field forward, resulting in more pronounced clinical benefits in future trials. The authors further believe that the realization of true cardiac regeneration will require the use of autologous cells more capable of retention and differentiation to cardiac cell lineages. We believe that endogenous cardiac progenitor cells have superior regenerative potential to current cell types in this regard. The difficulty in accessing, isolating, and expanding these cells has resulted in less preclinical and clinical interest. Ongoing investigation will better define the capabilities of these cardiac progenitor cells.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.