ArticleBMJ open science2019
Lower retention after retrograde coronary venous infusion compared with intracoronary infusion of mesenchymal stromal cells in the infarcted porcine myocardium.
Article in BMJ open science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Avenues for optimization of cardiac therapeutics by minimally invasive delivery.Acta biomaterialia · 2026Review
- All Roads Lead to Rome (the Heart): Cell Retention and Outcomes From Various Delivery Routes of Cell Therapy Products to the Heart.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Review
- Lower retention after retrograde coronary venous infusion compared with intracoronary infusion of mesenchymal stromal cells in the infarcted porcine myocardium.BMJ open science · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCommonly used strategies for cell delivery to the heart are intramyocardial injection and intracoronary (IC) infusion, both having their advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, alternative strategies, such as retrograde coronary venous infusion (RCVI), are explored. The aim of this confirmatory study was to compare cardiac cell retention between RCVI and IC infusion. As a secondary end point, the procedural safety of RCVI is assessed.
methodsFour weeks after myocardial infarction, 12 pigs were randomised to receive mesenchymal stromal cells, labelled with Indium-111, via RCVI (n=6) or IC infusion (n=6). Four hours after cell administration, nuclear imaging was performed to determine the number of cells retained in the heart both in vivo and ex vivo. Procedure-related safety measures were reported.
resultsCardiac cell retention is significantly lower after RCVI compared with IC infusion (in vivo: RCVI: median 2.89% vs IC: median 13.74%, p=0.002, ex vivo: RCVI: median 2.55% vs IC: median 39.40%, p=0.002). RCVI led to development of pericardial fluid and haematomas on the frontal wall of the heart in three cases. Coronary venous dissection after RCVI was seen in three pigs, of which one also developed pericardial fluid and a haematoma. IC infusion led to no flow in one pig.
conclusionRCVI is significantly less efficient in delivering cells to the heart compared with IC infusion. RCVI led to more procedure-related safety issues than IC infusion, with multiple cases of venous dissection and development of haematomas and pericardial fluid collections.
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.