ReviewBiomedicines2023
Unlocking the Pragmatic Potential of Regenerative Therapies in Heart Failure with Next-Generation Treatments.
Review in Biomedicines, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cellular Products with Anti-Inflammatory Properties for the Treatment of Cartilage Lesions.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Article
- Umbilical Cord Matrix (Wharton Jelly) Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Next-generation Myocardial Repair and Regeneration: Mechanisms and Pre-clinical Evidence.Current cardiology reviews · 2025Review
- Current Status of Cardiac Regenerative Therapy Using Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Stem cell-based therapies for heart failure management: a narrative review of current evidence and future perspectives.Heart failure reviews · 2024Review
- A simeprevir-inducible molecular switch for the control of cell and gene therapies.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Stem Cell-Based Therapy and Cell-Free Therapy as an Alternative Approach for Cardiac Regeneration.Stem cells international · 2023Review
- Article
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
Patients with chronic heart failure (HF) have a poor prognosis due to irreversible impairment of left ventricular function, with 5-year survival rates <60%. Despite advances in conventional medicines for HF, prognosis remains poor, and there is a need to improve treatment further. Cell-based therapies to restore the myocardium offer a pragmatic approach that provides hope for the treatment of HF. Although first-generation cell-based therapies using multipotent cells (bone marrow-derived mononuclear cells, mesenchymal stem cells, adipose-derived regenerative cells, and c-kit-positive cardiac cells) demonstrated safety in preclinical models of HF, poor engraftment rates, and a limited ability to form mature cardiomyocytes (CMs) and to couple electrically with existing CMs, meant that improvements in cardiac function in double-blind clinical trials were limited and largely attributable to paracrine effects. The next generation of stem cell therapies uses CMs derived from human embryonic stem cells or, increasingly, from human-induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs). These cell therapies have shown the ability to engraft more successfully and improve electromechanical function of the heart in preclinical studies, including in non-human primates. Advances in cell culture and delivery techniques promise to further improve the engraftment and integration of hiPSC-derived CMs (hiPSC-CMs), while the use of metabolic selection to eliminate undifferentiated cells will help minimize the risk of teratomas. Clinical trials of allogeneic hiPSC-CMs in HF are now ongoing, providing hope for vast numbers of patients with few other options available.
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.