AIMS: The SEISMIC study was an open-label, prospective, randomised study to assess the safety and feasibility of percutaneous myoblast implantation in heart failure patients with implanted cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients were randomised 2:1 to autologous skeletal myoblast therapy vs. optimal medical treatment. The primary safety end-point was defined as the incidence of procedural and device related serious adverse events, whereas the efficacy endpoints were defined as the change in global LVEF by MUGA scan, change in NYHA classification of heart failure and in the distance achieved during a six-minute walk test (6MW) at 6-month follow-up. Forty subjects were randomised to the treatment arm (n=26), or to the control arm (n=14). There were 12 sustained arrhythmic events and one death after episodes of ventricular tachycardia (VT) in the treatment group and 14 events in the control group (P=ns). At 6-month follow-up, 6MW distance improved by 60.3±54.1?meters in the treated group as compared to no improvement in the control group (0.4±185.7?meters; P=ns). In the control group, 28.6% experienced worsening of heart failure status (4/14), while 14.3% experienced an improvement in NYHA classification (2/14). In the myoblast-treatment arm, one patient experienced a deterioration in NYHA classification (8.0%), whereas five patients improved one or two classes (20.0%; P=0.06). However, therapy did not improve global LVEF measured by MUGA at 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that implantation of myoblasts in patients with HF is feasible, appears to be safe and may provide symptomatic relief, though no significant effect was detected on global LVEF.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: The SEISMIC study was an open-label, prospective, randomised study to assess the safety and feasibility of percutaneous myoblast implantation in heart failurepatients with implanted cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD). METHODS AND RESULTS:Patients were randomised 2:1 to autologous skeletal myoblast therapy vs. optimal medical treatment. The primary safety end-point was defined as the incidence of procedural and device related serious adverse events, whereas the efficacy endpoints were defined as the change in global LVEF by MUGA scan, change in NYHA classification of heart failure and in the distance achieved during a six-minute walk test (6MW) at 6-month follow-up. Forty subjects were randomised to the treatment arm (n=26), or to the control arm (n=14). There were 12 sustained arrhythmic events and one death after episodes of ventricular tachycardia (VT) in the treatment group and 14 events in the control group (P=ns). At 6-month follow-up, 6MW distance improved by 60.3±54.1?meters in the treated group as compared to no improvement in the control group (0.4±185.7?meters; P=ns). In the control group, 28.6% experienced worsening of heart failure status (4/14), while 14.3% experienced an improvement in NYHA classification (2/14). In the myoblast-treatment arm, one patient experienced a deterioration in NYHA classification (8.0%), whereas five patients improved one or two classes (20.0%; P=0.06). However, therapy did not improve global LVEF measured by MUGA at 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that implantation of myoblasts in patients with HF is feasible, appears to be safe and may provide symptomatic relief, though no significant effect was detected on global LVEF.