Trial reportEuropean heart journal2016
Improved outcome with repeated intracoronary injection of bone marrow-derived cells within a registry: rationale for the randomized outcome trial REPEAT.
Trial report in European heart journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Stem cell therapy for dilated cardiomyopathy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Stem cell therapy for chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Association of Mutations Contributing to Clonal Hematopoiesis With Prognosis in Chronic Ischemic Heart Failure.JAMA cardiology · 2019Trial
- Late Bone Marrow Mononuclear Cell Transplantation in Rats with Sciatic Nerve Crush: Analysis of a Potential Therapeutic Time Window.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- A prospective randomized controlled study of multi-intravenous infusion of umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (PRIME-HFrEF) trial: Rationale and design.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2024Article
- Cell Therapy in the Treatment of Coronary Heart Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Issues with Tissues: Trends in Tissue-Engineered Products in Clinical Trials in the European Union.Tissue engineering. Part B, Reviews · 2023Review
- Cell therapy in patients with heart failure: a comprehensive review and emerging concepts.Cardiovascular research · 2022Review
- Post-myocardial infarction heart failure dysregulates the bone vascular niche.Nature communications · 2021Article
- Article
- Function Follows Form - A Review of Cardiac Cell Therapy.Circulation journal : official journal of the Japanese Circulation Society · 2019Review
- Potential Strategies for Clinical Translation of Repeated Cell Therapy.Circulation research · 2019Article
- Biological therapies in otology.HNO · 2017Review
- Article
- Inhibition of Histone Methyltransferase, Histone Deacetylase, andStem cells international · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsRegenerative therapies have evolved as a promising new option in the treatment of post-infarction heart failure. A major limitation of intracoronary application of autologous bone marrow-derived mononuclear cells (BM-MNCs) is that homing of the applied cells is profoundly reduced in patients with post-infarction heart failure compared with patients with acute myocardial infarction. However, early pilot and also randomized controlled trials have demonstrated significant improvements in overall cardiac function. The aim of the present analysis was to quantify a potential mortality risk reduction and reduced hospitalization in order to provide data for a prospective outcome trial. METHODS AND
resultsThe results of an ongoing single-centre registry including 297 post-infarction heart failure patients suggest that repeated intracoronary application of autologous bone marrow-derived cells is associated with a significant better 2-year survival compared with a single BM-MNC application (2-year survival 93.6 vs. 84.0%, P = 0.03). Likewise, mortality is significantly lower at 2-year follow-up compared with the mortality estimated by the use of the Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM) in patients receiving repeated BM-MNC application (observed mortality 6.4%, predicted mortality 16.2%, P = 0.02). Although the trend persisted at 3-year follow-up, the mortality reduction was no longer statistically significant between single and repeated treatment (mortality 21.9 vs. 13.7%, P = 0.06).
conclusionRepeated intracoronary administration of BM-MNC appears to be associated with improved clinical outcome compared with single treatment at 2 years. This registry provides the rationale for the design of the multicentre randomized, controlled, open-label REPEAT trial, which prospectively compares the effects of single vs. repeated intracoronary application of autologous BM-MNC on total and SHFM-predicted mortality in patients with chronic post-infarction heart failure.
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.