SynthesisStem cell research & therapy2025
Stem cell therapy for patients with acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review of clinical trials.
Synthesis in Stem cell research & therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomaterial-Assisted Stem Cell Therapy and Exosome Delivery in Myocardial Infarction: A Narrative Review.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Human iPSC-derived 3D cardiac models for cardiomyopathies: organoids, spheroids, and engineered heart tissues as translational platforms.Stem cells (Dayton, Ohio) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionStem cell therapy has emerged as a potential regenerative approach for Acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Despite decades of research and advancement in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) management, translating innovative therapies from bench to bedside remains a central challenge. Nonetheless, clinical outcomes exhibit considerable variability. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the clinical landscape of stem cell therapy for AMI, specifically focusing on how variations in cell type, delivery timing, routes, and dosages can affect cell therapy efficacy.
methodsThis study is a systematic review of randomized clinical trials. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, and the study was conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.
resultsAfter searching the relevant databases, a total of 5276 studies were assessed, and 43 trials were considered eligible for inclusion in the present systematic review. The safety and efficacy of various types of stem cells, including bone marrow-derived mononuclear cells (BM-MNCs), mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), cardiac progenitor cells, and, more recently, induced pluripotent stem cells, have been evaluated in numerous clinical trials and meta-analyses. Among these, BM-MNCs and MSCs have been the most extensively studied. Although results vary from trial to trial and can even be contradictory, from frank failures to monumental achievements, overall, the evidence supports modest but statistically significant improvements in surrogate endpoints, such as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), ventricular remodeling, and reduced infarct size.
conclusionWe have critically reviewed how methodological approaches-especially the definitions of endpoints and clinical outcome measures-have significantly influenced the reported efficacy and direction of the field. The interpretation of clinical trial results in cell therapy for AMI is heavily impacted by the specific metrics used to define success. A key focus is distinguishing between clinical trials on patients with acute and recent myocardial infarction (which is the main focus of this review) and those with chronic ischemic or non-ischemic cardiomyopathies, as they involve different treatment strategies. Patient selection is essential for improving responses in patients with AMI. Those with a severely reduced LVEF (LVEF < 40%) and younger age tend to benefit more. Limiting the transplantation window to the first 3-7 days after AMI may improve the intervention's effectiveness.
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.