Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25953823›Full record

ArticleCirculation. Cardiovascular interventions2015

Intracoronary delivery of self-assembling heart-derived microtissues (cardiospheres) for prevention of adverse remodeling in a pig model of convalescent myocardial infarction.

Romain Gallet, Eleni Tseliou, James Dawkins, Ryan Middleton, Jackelyn Valle, David Angert, Heidi Reich, Daniel Luthringer, Michelle Kreke, Rachel Smith and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Evaluating Novel Targets of Ischemia Reperfusion Injury in Pig Models.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Romain GalletFrom the Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute, Los Angeles, CA (R.G., E.T., J.D., R.M., J.V., D.A., H.R., D.L., M.K., R.S., L.M.); and Capricor Inc, Los Angeles, CA (M.K., R.S., L.M.).
Eleni TseliouFrom the Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute, Los Angeles, CA (R.G., E.T., J.D., R.M., J.V., D.A., H.R., D.L., M.K., R.S., L.M.); and Capricor Inc, Los Angeles, CA (M.K., R.S., L.M.).
James DawkinsFrom the Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute, Los Angeles, CA (R.G., E.T., J.D., R.M., J.V., D.A., H.R., D.L., M.K., R.S., L.M.); and Capricor Inc, Los Angeles, CA (M.K., R.S., L.M.).
Ryan MiddletonFrom the Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute, Los Angeles, CA (R.G., E.T., J.D., R.M., J.V., D.A., H.R., D.L., M.K., R.S., L.M.); and Capricor Inc, Los Angeles, CA (M.K., R.S., L.M.).
Jackelyn ValleFrom the Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute, Los Angeles, CA (R.G., E.T., J.D., R.M., J.V., D.A., H.R., D.L., M.K., R.S., L.M.); and Capricor Inc, Los Angeles, CA (M.K., R.S., L.M.).
David AngertFrom the Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute, Los Angeles, CA (R.G., E.T., J.D., R.M., J.V., D.A., H.R., D.L., M.K., R.S., L.M.); and Capricor Inc, Los Angeles, CA (M.K., R.S., L.M.).
Heidi ReichFrom the Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute, Los Angeles, CA (R.G., E.T., J.D., R.M., J.V., D.A., H.R., D.L., M.K., R.S., L.M.); and Capricor Inc, Los Angeles, CA (M.K., R.S., L.M.).
Daniel LuthringerFrom the Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute, Los Angeles, CA (R.G., E.T., J.D., R.M., J.V., D.A., H.R., D.L., M.K., R.S., L.M.); and Capricor Inc, Los Angeles, CA (M.K., R.S., L.M.).
Michelle KrekeFrom the Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute, Los Angeles, CA (R.G., E.T., J.D., R.M., J.V., D.A., H.R., D.L., M.K., R.S., L.M.); and Capricor Inc, Los Angeles, CA (M.K., R.S., L.M.).
Rachel SmithFrom the Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute, Los Angeles, CA (R.G., E.T., J.D., R.M., J.V., D.A., H.R., D.L., M.K., R.S., L.M.); and Capricor Inc, Los Angeles, CA (M.K., R.S., L.M.).
Linda MarbánFrom the Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute, Los Angeles, CA (R.G., E.T., J.D., R.M., J.V., D.A., H.R., D.L., M.K., R.S., L.M.); and Capricor Inc, Los Angeles, CA (M.K., R.S., L.M.).
Eduardo MarbánFrom the Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute, Los Angeles, CA (R.G., E.T., J.D., R.M., J.V., D.A., H.R., D.L., M.K., R.S., L.M.); and Capricor Inc, Los Angeles, CA (M.K., R.S., L.M.). eduardo.marban@csmc.edu.

Funding

Training in Advanced Heart Disease ResearchT32HL116273 · NHLBI · CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER · PI Joshua I Goldhaber, EDUARDO MARBAN · 2013 to 2026
$5.6M
Exosome-mediated cardioprotection and regenerationR01HL124074 · NHLBI · CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER · PI MARBAN, EDUARDO · 2014 to 2021
$4.0M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL124074NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL116273NHLBI NIH HHS T32HL116273
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPreclinical studies in rodents and pigs indicate that the self-assembling microtissues known as cardiospheres may be more effective than dispersed cardiosphere-derived cells. However, the more desirable intracoronary route has been assumed to be unsafe for cardiosphere delivery: Cardiospheres are large (30-150 μm), raising concerns about likely microembolization. We questioned these negative assumptions by evaluating the safety and efficacy of optimized intracoronary delivery of cardiospheres in a porcine model of convalescent myocardial infarction. METHODS AND

resultsFirst, we standardized the size of cardiospheres by modifying culture conditions. Then, dosage was determined by infusing escalating doses of cardiospheres in the left anterior descending artery of naive pigs, looking for acute adverse effects. Finally, in a randomized efficacy study, 14 minipigs received allogeneic cardiospheres (1.3 × 10(6)) or vehicle 1 month after myocardial infarction. Animals underwent magnetic resonance imaging before infusion and 1 month later to assess left ventricular ejection fraction, scar mass, and viable mass. In the dosing study, we did not observe any evidence of microembolization after cardiosphere infusion. In the post-myocardial infarction study, cardiospheres preserved LV function, reduced scar mass and increased viable mass, whereas placebo did not. Moreover, cardiosphere decreased collagen content, and increased vessel densities and myocardial perfusion. Importantly, intracoronary cardiospheres decreased left ventricular end-diastolic pressure and increased cardiac output.

conclusionsIntracoronary delivery of cardiospheres is safe. Intracoronary cardiospheres are also remarkably effective in decreasing scar, halting adverse remodeling, increasing myocardial perfusion, and improving hemodynamic status after myocardial infarction in pigs. Thus, cardiospheres may be viable therapeutic candidates for intracoronary infusion in selected myocardial disorders.

Indexed as

Disease Models, AnimalStem Cell TransplantationAnimalsCoronary VesselsInfusions, Intra-ArterialMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMyocardial InfarctionMyocytes, CardiacSwineSwine, MiniatureTransplantation, AutologousVascular Remodelingmyocardial infarctionstem cells

Identifiers

PMID25953823
PMCPMC4428690

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.