ReviewThe Journal of physiology2016
Electrical effects of stem cell transplantation for ischaemic cardiomyopathy: friend or foe?
Review in The Journal of physiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- State-of-play for cellular therapies in cardiac repair and regeneration.Stem cells (Dayton, Ohio) · 2021Review
- Physiologic expansion of human heart-derived cells enhances therapeutic repair of injured myocardium.Stem cell research & therapy · 2019Article
- Biologically active constituents of the secretome of human W8B2Scientific reports · 2018Article
- George Ralph Mines (1886-1914): the dawn of cardiac nonlinear dynamics.The Journal of physiology · 2016Article
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
Abstract
Despite advances in other realms of cardiac care, the mortality attributable to ischaemic cardiomyopathy has only marginally decreased over the last 10 years. These findings highlight the growing realization that current pharmacological and device therapies rarely reverse disease progression and rationalize a focus on novel means to reverse, repair and re-vascularize damaged hearts. As such, multiple candidate cell types have been used to regenerate damaged hearts either directly (through differentiation to form new tissue) or indirectly (via paracrine effects). Emerging literature suggests that robust engraftment of electrophysiolgically heterogeneous tissue from transplanted cells comes at the cost of a high incidence of ventricular arrhythmias. Similar electrophysiological studies of haematological stem cells raised early concerns that transplant of depolarized, inexcitable cells that also induce paracrine-mediated electrophysiological remodelling may be pro-arrhythmic. However, meta-analyses suggest that patients receiving haematological stem cells paradoxically may experience a decrease in ventricular arrhythmias, an observation potentially related to the extremely poor long-term survival of injected cells. Finally, early clinical and preclinical data from technologies capable of differentiating to a mature cardiomyocyte phenotype (such as cardiac-derived stem cells) suggests that these cells are not pro-arrhythmic although they too lack robust long-term engraftment. These results highlight the growing understanding that as next generation cell therapies are developed, emphasis should also be placed on understanding possible anti-arrhythmic contributions of transplanted cells while vigilance is needed to predict and treat the inadvertent effects of regenerative cell therapies on the electrophysiological stability of the ischaemic cardiomyopathic heart.
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.