Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30571359›Full record

ArticleCirculation2018

Neonatal Heart Regeneration: Comprehensive Literature Review.

Nicholas T Lam, Hesham A Sadek

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Circulation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 102 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
102citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

102 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 138 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Squamate ventricular cardiomyocytes: Ploidy, proliferation, and heart muscle cell size in the leopard gecko (Eublepharis macularius).Developmental dynamics : an official publication of the American Association of Anatomists · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

42 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nicholas T LamDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiology (N.T.L and H.A.S.).
Hesham A SadekDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiology (N.T.L and H.A.S.).
LAM Foundation · US

Funding

Role of Meis1 in Regulation of Cardiomyocyte ProliferationR01HL115275 · NHLBI · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI SADEK, HESHAM · 2012 to 2016
$2.4M
Regulation of Cardiomyocyte Turnover in the Adult Mammalian HeartR01HL131778 · NHLBI · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI SADEK, HESHAM · 2016 to 2019
$1.6M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL115275NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL131778
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe adult mammalian heart is incapable of meaningful functional recovery after injury, and thus promoting heart regeneration is 1 of the most important therapeutic targets in cardiovascular medicine. In contrast to the adult mammalian heart, the neonatal mammalian heart is capable of regeneration after various types of injury. Since the first report in 2011, a number of groups have reported their findings on neonatal heart regeneration. The current review provides a comprehensive analysis of heart regeneration studies in neonatal mammals conducted to date, outlines lessons learned, and poses unanswered questions.

methodsWe performed a PubMed search using the keywords "neonatal" and "heart" and "regeneration." In addition, we assessed all publications that cited the first neonatal heart regeneration reports: Porrello et al, Science, Feb 2011 for apical resection injury; Porrello et al, PNAS, Dec 2012 for coronary ligation injury; and Mahmoud et al, Nature Methods, Jan 2014 for surgical methodology. Publications were examined for surgical models used, timing of surgery, and postinjury assessment including anatomic, histological, and functional assessment, as well as conclusions drawn.

resultsWe found 30 publications that performed neonatal apical resection, 19 publications that performed neonatal myocardial infarction by coronary artery ligation, and 6 publications that performed cryoinjury using liquid nitrogen-cooled metal probes. Both apical resection and ischemic infarction injury in neonatal mice result in a robust regenerative response, mediated by cardiomyocyte proliferation. On the other hand, several reports have demonstrated that cryoinjury is associated with incomplete heart regeneration in neonatal mice. Not surprisingly, several studies suggest that injury size, as well as surgical and histological techniques, can strongly influence the observed regenerative response and final conclusions. Studies have utilized these neonatal cardiac injury models to identify factors that either inhibit or stimulate heart regeneration.

conclusionsOverall, there is consensus that both apical resection and coronary ligation injuries during the first 2 days of life result in heart regeneration in neonatal mammals, whereas cryoinjury was not associated with a similar regenerative response. This regenerative response is mediated by proliferation of preexisting cardiomyocytes, and is modifiable by injury size and surgical technique, as well as metabolic, immunologic, genetic, and environmental factors.

Indexed as

Cell ProliferationRegenerationAnimalsAnimals, NewbornDisease Models, AnimalHeartHeart InjuriesHumansInfant, NewbornMiceMyocardial InfarctionMyocytes, CardiacRecovery of FunctionSignal Transductioncardiomyocyte proliferationheart regenerationmammalian neonates

Identifiers

PMID30571359
PMCPMC6673675
OpenAlexW2899478022

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.