Trial reportArquivos brasileiros de cardiologia2013
VEGF 165 gene therapy for patients with refractory angina: mobilization of endothelial progenitor cells.
Trial report in Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictive Biomarkers for Coronary Collateral Circulation Development After Myocardial Infarction.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Synergistic effect of VEGF and SDF-1α in endothelial progenitor cells and vascular smooth muscle cells.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- Gene therapy for refractory angina and cell therapy for heart failure: experience of a Brazilian research group.Gene therapy · 2020Review
- Development of Endothelial-Specific Single Inducible Lentiviral Vectors for Genetic Engineering of Endothelial Progenitor Cells.Scientific reports · 2015Article
- Effects of different mesenchymal stromal cell sources and delivery routes in experimental emphysema.Respiratory research · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) induces mobilization of endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) with the capacity for proliferation and differentiation into mature endothelial cells, thus contributing to the angiogenic process.
objectiveWe sought to assess the behavior of EPCs in patients with ischemic heart disease and refractory angina who received an intramyocardial injections of 2000 µg of VEGF 165 as the sole therapy.
methodsThe study was a subanalysis of a clinical trial. Patients with advanced ischemic heart disease and refractory angina were assessed for eligibility. Inclusion criteria were as follows: signs and symptoms of angina and/or heart failure despite maximum medical treatment and a myocardial ischemic area of at least 5% as assessed by single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). Exclusion criteria were as follows: age > 65 years, left ventricular ejection fraction < 25%, and a diagnosis of cancer. Patients whose EPC levels were assessed were included. The intervention was 2000 µg of VEGF 165 plasmid injected into the ischemic myocardium. The frequency of CD34+/KDR+ cells was analyzed by flow cytometry before and 3, 9, and 27 days after the intervention.
resultsA total of 9 patients were included, 8 males, mean age 59.4 years, mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 59.3% and predominant class III angina. The number of EPCs on day 3 was significantly higher than that at baseline (p = 0.03); however, that on days 9 and 27 was comparable to that at baseline.
conclusionWe identified a transient mobilization of EPCs, which peaked on the 3th day after VEGF 165 gene therapy in patients with refractory angina and returned to near baseline levels on days 9 and 27.
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.