ReviewHeart failure reviews2019
Cell-based therapies for the treatment of myocardial infarction: lessons from cardiac regeneration and repair mechanisms in non-human vertebrates.
Review in Heart failure reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gene-Edited Stem Cells for Ischemic Vascular Disease: Current Advances and Future Perspectives.Current issues in molecular biology · 2026Review
- Advances in 3D bioprinting technology for cardiac tissue engineering and regeneration.Bioactive materials · 2021Review
- Immunogenicity in Stem Cell Therapy for Cardiac Regeneration.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2020Review
- Efficient Cardiac Differentiation of Human Amniotic Fluid-Derived Stem Cells into Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells and Their Potential Immune Privilege.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Article
- Harnessing Cardiac Regeneration as a Potential Therapeutic Strategy for AL Cardiac Amyloidosis.Current cardiology reports · 2020Review
- Mussel-inspired conductive TiTheranostics · 2020Article
- Chemical Engineering of Cell Therapy for Heart Diseases.Accounts of chemical research · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ischemic cardiomyopathy is the cardiovascular condition with the highest impact on the Western population. In mammals (humans included), prolonged ischemia in the ventricular walls causes the death of cardiomyocytes (myocardial infarction, MI). The loss of myocardial mass is soon compensated by the formation of a reparative, non-contractile fibrotic scar that ultimately affects heart performance. Despite the enormous clinical relevance of MI, no effective therapy is available for the long-term treatment of this condition. Moreover, since the human heart is not able to undergo spontaneous regeneration, many researchers aim at designing cell-based therapies that allow for the substitution of dead cardiomyocytes by new, functional ones. So far, the majority of such strategies rely on the injection of different progenitor/stem cells to the infarcted heart. These cardiovascular progenitors, which are expected to differentiate into cardiomyocytes de novo, seldom give rise to new cardiac muscle. In this context, the most important challenge in the field is to fully disclose the molecular and cellular mechanisms that could promote active myocardial regeneration after cardiac damage. Accordingly, we suggest that such strategy should be inspired by the unique regenerative and reparative responses displayed by non-human animal models, from the restricted postnatal myocardial regeneration abilities of the murine heart to the full ventricular regeneration of some bony fishes (e.g., zebrafish). In this review article, we will discuss about current scientific approaches to study cardiac reparative and regenerative phenomena using animal models.
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.