SynthesisOpen heart2025
Safety and efficacy of stem cell therapy in acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of adverse events, infarct size and LV ejection fraction assessed by CMRI.
Synthesis in Open heart, 2025. 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.
- Review
- Administration of Single or Repeated Doses of CDCs in a Swine Model of Reperfused Myocardial Infarction: Magnetic Resonance and Proteomics Evaluation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Research progress of stem cells in the treatment of atherosclerosis.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Review
- Regenerative and molecular therapies for myocardial repair (Review).Medicine internationalReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe current standard treatment for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is prompt reperfusion through primary percutaneous coronary intervention. However, myocardial infarction remains the leading cause of heart failure, contributing to prolonged hospital stay and a 30% rehospitalisation rate within 6 months. Stem cell therapy has emerged as a potential approach to repair myocardial damage.
methodsThis study is a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials available online. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed, and the study was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.
results21 articles from 15 trials (21 clinical trial interventions) with a total of 1218 participants were included. Stem cell therapy was associated with fewer adverse events than controls (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.99, p=0.05), supporting its short-term to mid-term safety. No cardiac-related cancer cases were reported in any group, but longer follow-up is needed to assess potential oncogenic risks. Efficacy analyses showed no significant effect on infarct size (absolute or relative) or left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in short-term follow-up. In long-term follow-up, relative infarct size became statistically significant in favour of stem cell therapy only after exclusion of an outlier study (standardised mean difference -0.63, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.32, p<0.0001). Long-term LVEF improvement was also significant (mean difference 2.63%, 95% CI 0.50% to 4.76%, p=0.02), although substantial heterogeneity remained unexplained despite sensitivity analyses, including the removal of low-correlation studies.
conclusionStem cell therapy for acute myocardial infarction demonstrates a favourable safety profile. While overall efficacy remains uncertain, long-term benefits may exist, particularly for relative infarct size and LVEF. However, interpretation is limited by study heterogeneity. Future trials with standardised protocols and longer follow-up are warranted.
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.