| Literature DB >> 23982478 |
Sander F Rodrigo1, Jan van Ramshorst, Georgette E Hoogslag, Helèn Boden, Matthijs A Velders, Suzanne C Cannegieter, Helene Roelofs, Imad Al Younis, Petra Dibbets-Schneider, Willem E Fibbe, Jaap Jan Zwaginga, Jeroen J Bax, Martin J Schalij, Saskia L Beeres, Douwe E Atsma.
Abstract
In experimental studies, mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) transplantation in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) models has been associated with enhanced neovascularization and myogenesis. Clinical data however, are scarce. Therefore, the present study evaluates the safety and feasibility of intramyocardial MSC injection in nine patients, shortly after AMI during short-term and 5-year follow-up. Periprocedural safety analysis demonstrated one transient ischemic attack. No other adverse events related to MSC treatment were observed during 5-year follow-up. Clinical events were compared to a nonrandomized control group comprising 45 matched controls. A 5-year event-free survival after MSC-treatment was comparable to controls (89 vs. 91 %, P = 0.87). Echocardiographic imaging for evaluation of left ventricular function demonstrated improvements up to 5 years after MSC treatment. These findings were not significantly different when compared to controls. The present safety and feasibility study suggest that intramyocardial injection of MSC in patients shortly after AMI is feasible and safe up to 5-year follow-up.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23982478 PMCID: PMC3790917 DOI: 10.1007/s12265-013-9507-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiovasc Transl Res ISSN: 1937-5387 Impact factor: 4.132
Fig. 1Flow chart of patients included for MSC injection. PCI percutaneous coronary intervention, SPECT single-photon emission computed tomography
Baseline characteristics
| Controls | MSC |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients | 45 | 9 | |
| Age (years) | 61 ± 11 | 56 ± 8 | 0.54 |
| Men | 35 (78 %) | 7 (78 %) | 1.00 |
| Cardiovascular risk factors | |||
| Smoking | 19 (42 %) | 6 (67 %) | 0.28 |
| Hypertension | 18 (40 %) | 4 (44 %) | 1.00 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 5 (11 %) | 1 (11 %) | 1.00 |
| Dyslipidemia | 9 (20 %) | 2 (22 %) | 1.00 |
| Family history of coronary artery disease | 18 (40 %) | 4 (44 %) | 1.00 |
| Laboratory findings during MI admission | |||
| Peak troponine T level (μg/L) | 10.1 ± 5.6 | 9.1 ± 6.2 | 0.62 |
| Peak CK level (μ/L) | 4859 ± 3677 | 3242 ± 1277 | 0.20 |
| Creatinine kinase (U/L) | 75 ± 12 | 85 ± 30 | 0.30 |
| Infarct-related coronary artery | |||
| Right coronary artery | 15 (33 %) | 3 (33 %) | 1.00 |
| Left anterior descending | 25 (56 %) | 5 (56 %) | |
| Left circumflex | 5 (11 %) | 1 (11 %) | |
| Medication at dischargea | |||
| Aspirin | 42 (93 %) | 6 (67 %) | <0.05 |
| Clopidogrel | 43 (100 %) | 9 (100 %) | 1.00 |
| Oral anticoagulant | 1 (2 %) | 3 (33 %) | <0.05 |
| ACE/AT2 | 43 (100 %) | 9 (100 %) | 1.00 |
| Statin | 43 (100 %) | 9 (100 %) | 1.00 |
| Beta-blocker | 43 (100 %) | 9 (100 %) | 1.00 |
CK creatine kinase, ACE angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor, AT2 angiotensin receptor blocker
aTwo controls died during admission
* P values are given for the comparison of controls versus MSC-treated patients
Individual patient information including patient number and corresponding age, gender, number of injected MSCs and LVESV, LVEDS, LVEF and WMSI at baseline, 3 months FU, 12 months FU, and 4–5 years FU, including the change in LVEF during FU as compared to baseline
| MSC | Baseline | 3 Months FU | 12 Months FU | 4–5 Years FU | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. | Age | Gender | LVESV | LVEDV | LVEF | WMSI | LVESV | LVEDV | LVEF | WMSI | LVESV | LVEDV | LVEF | WMSI | LVESV | LVEDV | LVEF | WMSI | |
| 1 | 58 | Female | 50.0 | 34 | 70 | 51 | 1.19 | 28 | 60 | 53 | 1.19 | 25 | 62 | 60 | 1.13 | 21 | 55 | 62 | 1.13 |
| 2a | 9a | 11a | |||||||||||||||||
| 2 | 47 | Female | 8.0 | 57 | 105 | 46 | 1.63 | 60 | 122 | 51 | 1.38 | 50 | 111 | 55 | 1.13 | 39 | 97 | 60 | 1.13 |
| 5a | 9a | 14a | |||||||||||||||||
| 3 | 56 | Male | 28.3 | 38 | 73 | 48 | 1.69 | 38 | 79 | 52 | 1.25 | 37 | 82 | 55 | 1.19 | 30 | 73 | 59 | 1.13 |
| 4a | 7a | 11a | |||||||||||||||||
| 4 | 75 | Male | 50.0 | 47 | 89 | 47 | 1.25 | 36 | 79 | 54 | 1.25 | 33 | 92 | 64 | 1.06 | 32 | 77 | 58 | 1.25 |
| 7a | 17a | 11a | |||||||||||||||||
| 5 | 53 | Male | 5.1 | 58 | 108 | 46 | 1.44 | 51 | 111 | 54 | 1.13 | 43 | 101 | 57 | 1.25 | 41 | 96 | 57 | 1.88 |
| 8a | 11a | 11a | |||||||||||||||||
| 6 | 57 | Male | 43.4 | 52 | 96 | 46 | 1.50 | 62 | 128 | 52 | 1.31 | 60 | 130 | 54 | 1.25 | 52 | 116 | 55 | 1.38 |
| 6a | 8a | 9a | |||||||||||||||||
| 7 | 57 | Male | 3.0 | 56 | 104 | 46 | 1.69 | 49 | 99 | 51 | 1.50 | 44 | 103 | 57 | 1.31 | 79 | 139 | 43 | 1.56 |
| 5a | 11a | −3a | |||||||||||||||||
| 8 | 54 | Male | 50.0 | 55 | 112 | 51 | 1.69 | 65 | 131 | 50 | 1.63 | 67 | 151 | 56 | 1.50 | 61 | 114 | 46 | 1.88 |
| −1a | 5a | −5a | |||||||||||||||||
| 9b | 49 | Male | 40.0 | 50 | 88 | 43 | 1.94 | 119 | 170 | 30 | 2.13 | ||||||||
| −13a | |||||||||||||||||||
FU follow-up, MSC mesenchymal stem cell (×106), LVESV left ventricular end-systolic volumes (in milliliter), LVEDV left ventricular end-diastolic volumes (in milliliter), LVEF left ventricular ejection fractions (in percent), WMSI Wall Motion Score Index
aChange in LVEF as compared to baseline
bPatient died after 9 months
Fig. 2Kaplan–Meier curve for event-free survival of death, MI, revascularization and admission for heart failure. Event-free survival at 5 years follow-up was comparable between MSC-treated patients and controls (P = 0.97)
Fig. 3Individual improvements in segmental perfusion during exercise and rest after 3 months follow-up. Patients treated with MSCs showed a significant improvement in summed stress score (P < 0.01) and summed rest score (P = 0.04) when compared to baseline
Echocardiographic parameters during follow-up
| Baseline | 3 months FU | 6 months FU | 12 months FU | Two-way ANOVA | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MSC ( | Control ( |
| MSC ( | Control ( | MSC ( | Control ( | MSC ( | Control ( |
| |
| LVESV (mL) | 50 ± 9 | 58 ± 18 | 0.21 | 49 ± 14 | 58 ± 22 | 47 ± 11 | 54 ± 23 | 45 ± 14 | 52 ± 26 | 0.87 |
| LVEDV (mL) | 95 ± 16 | 105 ± 29 | 0.36 | 101 ± 26 | 112 ± 28 | 102 ± 20 | 110 ± 24 | 104 ± 30 | 108 ± 28 | 0.46 |
| LVEF (%) | 48 ± 2 | 45 ± 9 | 0.38 | 52 ± 2 | 49 ± 11 | 54 ± 4 | 50 ± 10 | 57 ± 3 | 50 ± 12 | 0.28 |
| WMSI | 1.6 ± 0.2 | 1.7 ± 0.3 | 0.28 | 1.4 ± 0.3 | 1.5 ± 0.3 | 1.4 ± 0.5 | 1.4 ± 0.3 | 1.2 ± 0.1 | 1.4 ± 0.3 | 0.20 |
LVESV left ventricular end-systolic volumes, LVEDV left ventricular end-diastolic volumes, LVEF left ventricular ejection fractions, WMSI Wall Motion Score Index, FU follow-up
*P values are given for the comparison of parameters between controls and MSC-treated patients at baseline
** P values are given for the comparison of parameters between controls and MSC-treated patients during 12 months follow-up
Fig. 4LV ejection fraction during follow-up for MSC-treated patients and controls. MSC-treated patients demonstrated a significant improvement in LV ejection fraction during 12 months follow-up (from 48 ± 2 to 57 ± 3 %) that was comparable to controls (45 ± 9 to 50 ± 12 %; ΔP = 0.28)