| Literature DB >> 23737803 |
Joseph C Poole1, Arshed A Quyyumi.
Abstract
ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is associated with an increased risk for congestive heart failure and long-term mortality despite the widespread use of thrombolysis and catheter-based revascularization. The need for improved post-STEMI therapies has led to a surge of novel therapeutics, especially regenerative approaches using autologous mononuclear cells. Indeed, the past decade has been marked by a number of human trials studying the safety and efficacy of progenitor cell delivery in the post-STEMI setting. While a variety of cell types and delivery techniques have been utilized, directed therapy to the infarct-related artery has been the most widely used approach. From over 1300 subjects randomized in these studies, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that cell therapy after STEMI is uniformly safe, while the efficacy of this intervention for improving outcomes is less clear. Recent meta-analyses have highlighted the importance of both timing of cell delivery, as well as the type, quantity, and mobility of delivered cells as determinants of response. Here, we show the case in which higher doses of CD34(+) cells, which are more potent in terms of their migratory capacity, offer the best hope for preserving cardiac function following STEMI.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23737803 PMCID: PMC3655659 DOI: 10.1155/2013/658480
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Stem Cells Int Impact factor: 5.443
Clinical trials of bone marrow cell (BMC) therapy by intracoronary delivery following acute ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI).
| Study author | Date published |
| Days after STEMI | Primary outcome | Mean no. CD34+cells |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assmus et al., [ | 2002 | 20 | 4 | Improved LVEF | 7.4 |
| Fernandez-Aviles et al., [ | 2004 | 20 | 13 | No difference | Not reported |
| Bartunek et al., [ | 2005 | 35 | 11.6 | Improved LVEF | 15.4 |
| Ge et al., [ | 2006 | 20 | <1 | Improved LVEF | 0.1 |
| Hirsch et al., [ | 2011 | 200 | 5 | No difference | 4 |
| Huikuri et al., [ | 2008 | 80 | 3 | Improved LVEF | 2.6 |
| Janssens et al., [ | 2006 | 67 | <1 | No difference | 2.8 |
| Lunde et al., [ | 2006 | 97 | 6 | No difference | 0.7 |
| Meluzín et al., [ | 2008 | 60 | 6.9 | Improved LVEF | Not reported |
| Quyyumi et al., [ | 2011 | 31 | 8 | Positive trend towards improved EF in highest dose group | 5, 10, 15 |
| Roncalli et al., [ | 2011 | 101 | 9.3 | Improved myocardial viability | 1.2 |
| Schachinger et al., [ | 2006 | 204 | 4 | Improved LVEF | 3.6 |
| Strauer et al., [ | 2002 | 10 | 7 | No difference | <0.6 |
| Tendera et al., [ | 2009 | 200 | 7 | No difference | 1.9 (CD34+ CXCR4+ cell group), not reported for unselected cell group |
| Traverse et al., [ | 2010 | 40 | 5 | No difference | 1.6 |
| Traverse et al., [ | 2011 | 87 | 17 | No difference | 3.8 |
| Wollert et al., [ | 2004 | 60 | 5 | Improved LVEF | 9.5 |