ReviewHeart failure reviews2013
Myocardial regeneration of the failing heart.
Review in Heart failure reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Regeneration of the lizard heart after cryoinjury.Experimental physiology · 2026Article
- NR4A2 protects cardiomyocytes against myocardial infarction injury by promoting autophagy.Cell death discovery · 2018Article
- PPARNuclear receptor research · 2018Article
- Evidence for Mechanisms Underlying the Functional Benefits of a Myocardial Matrix Hydrogel for Post-MI Treatment.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2016Article
- Timing effect of intramyocardial hydrogel injection for positively impacting left ventricular remodeling after myocardial infarction.Biomaterials · 2016Article
- Stem cell death and survival in heart regeneration and repair.Apoptosis : an international journal on programmed cell death · 2016Review
- Blockade of EMAP II protects cardiac function after chronic myocardial infarction by inducing angiogenesis.Journal of molecular and cellular cardiology · 2015Article
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
Human heart failure (HF) is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Currently, heart transplantation and implantation of mechanical devices represent the only available treatments for advanced HF. Two alternative strategies have emerged to treat patients with HF. One approach relies on transplantation of exogenous stem cells (SCs) of non-cardiac or cardiac origin to induce cardiac regeneration and improve ventricular function. Another complementary strategy relies on stimulation of the endogenous regenerative capacity of uninjured cardiac progenitor cells to rebuild cardiac muscle and restore ventricular function. Various SC types and delivery strategies have been examined in the experimental and clinical settings; however, neither the ideal cell type nor the cell delivery method for cardiac cell therapy has yet emerged. Although the use of bone marrow (BM)-derived cells, most frequently exploited in clinical trials, appears to be safe, the results are controversial. Two recent randomized trials have failed to document any beneficial effects of intracardiac delivery of autologous BM mononuclear cells on cardiac function of patients with HF. The remarkable discovery that various populations of cardiac progenitor cells (CPCs) are present in the adult human heart and that it possesses limited regeneration capacity has opened a new era in cardiac repair. Importantly, unlike BM-derived SCs, autologous CPCs from myocardial biopsies cultured and subsequently delivered by coronary injection to patients have given positive results. Although these data are promising, a better understanding of how to control proliferation and differentiation of CPCs, to enhance their recruitment and survival, is required before CPCs become clinically applicable therapeutics.
Indexed as
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.