Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26382088›Full record

ArticleJournal of cardiovascular translational research2015

Autologous Mesenchymal Stem Cells Show More Benefit on Systolic Function Compared to Bone Marrow Mononuclear Cells in a Porcine Model of Chronic Myocardial Infarction.

T I G van der Spoel, W A Gathier, S Koudstaal, F van Slochteren, S Jansen Of Lorkeers, J P G Sluijter, I E Hoefer, P Steendijk, M J M Cramer, P A Doevendans and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cardiovascular translational research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Therapeutic use of stem cells for cardiovascular disease.Clinical and translational medicine · 2016
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

T I G van der SpoelDepartment of Cardiology, Division Heart and Lungs, University Medical Center Utrecht, Rm E03.511, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
W A GathierDepartment of Cardiology, Division Heart and Lungs, University Medical Center Utrecht, Rm E03.511, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
S KoudstaalDepartment of Cardiology, Division Heart and Lungs, University Medical Center Utrecht, Rm E03.511, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
F van SlochterenDepartment of Cardiology, Division Heart and Lungs, University Medical Center Utrecht, Rm E03.511, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
S Jansen Of LorkeersDepartment of Cardiology, Division Heart and Lungs, University Medical Center Utrecht, Rm E03.511, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
J P G SluijterDepartment of Cardiology, Division Heart and Lungs, University Medical Center Utrecht, Rm E03.511, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
I E HoeferDepartment of Experimental Cardiology, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
P SteendijkDepartment of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
M J M CramerDepartment of Cardiology, Division Heart and Lungs, University Medical Center Utrecht, Rm E03.511, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
P A DoevendansDepartment of Cardiology, Division Heart and Lungs, University Medical Center Utrecht, Rm E03.511, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
E van BelleDepartment of Cardiology, Division Heart and Lungs, University Medical Center Utrecht, Rm E03.511, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
S A J ChamuleauDepartment of Cardiology, Division Heart and Lungs, University Medical Center Utrecht, Rm E03.511, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands. s.a.j.chamuleau@umcutrecht.nl.
Heidelberg University · DEUniversity Hospital Heidelberg · DEUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NLLeiden University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cardiac cell therapy is a strategy to treat patients with chronic myocardial infarction (MI). No consensus exists regarding the optimal cell type. First, a comparison between autologous bone marrow-derived mononuclear cells (BMMNC) and mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) on therapeutic efficacy after MI was performed. Next, the effect of repetitive, NOGA-guided transendocardial injection was determined via a crossover design. Nineteen pigs were allocated in three groups: (1) placebo (at 4 and 8 weeks), (2) MSC (followed by placebo at 8 weeks), or (3) BMMNC (followed by MSC at 8 weeks) delivery including a priming strategy to enhance MSC effect. At 4 weeks, ejection fraction (EF) was significantly improved after MSC injection and not by BMMNC injection. After 8 weeks, no difference was observed in EF between cell-treated groups demonstrating the positive systolic effect of MSC. This study showed that MSC rather than BMMNC injection improves systolic function in chronic MI.

Indexed as

Bone Marrow TransplantationMesenchymal Stem Cell TransplantationAnesthesia, IntravenousAnimalsCells, CulturedChronic DiseaseDisease Models, AnimalEchocardiographyFemaleMyocardial InfarctionPremedicationStroke VolumeSwineSystoleTransplantation, AutologousIschemic cardiomyopathyMesenchymal stem cellStem cellsSystolic function

Identifiers

PMID26382088
PMCPMC4623074
OpenAlexW1925345346

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.