| Literature DB >> 26667804 |
Guo Dai1, Qing Xu2, Rong Luo3, Jianfang Gao4, Hui Chen5, Yun Deng6, Yongqing Li7, Yuequn Wang8, Wuzhou Yuan9, Xiushan Wu10,11.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies reported that Atorvastatin (ATOR) can improve the efficacy of Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) transplantation after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, the results of those studies were inconsistent. To clarify the beneficial effects of atorvastatin added to the cell therapy with MSCs in animal model of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control studies.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26667804 PMCID: PMC4678482 DOI: 10.1186/s12872-015-0162-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord ISSN: 1471-2261 Impact factor: 2.298
Fig. 1Flowchart of enrolled studies on cell therapy in animals with acute MI
Characteristics of studies included in the Meta-Analysis
| Author (year) | Language | Type of animal | Number of cells | Atorvastatin treatment | Route of delivery | Timing of cell therapy after MI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zhang Q et al. (2014) [ | English | Rat | 5 × 106cells/animal | 10 mg/kg/day | Intramuscularly injection | 4 weeks |
| Qu Z et al. (2013) [ | English | Rabbit | 4 × 107cells/50uL | 1.5 mg/kg/day | Intramuscularly injection | 4 weeks |
| Song L et al. (2013) [ | English | Swine | 3 × 107cells/animal | 0.25 mg/kg/day | Intramuscularly injection | 4 weeks |
| Cai A et al. (2011) [ | English | Rat | 1 × 106cells /100uL | 10 mg/kg/day | Intramuscularly injection | 4 weeks |
| Yang YJ et al. (2008) [ | English | Swine | 3 × 107cells/animal | 0.25 mg/kg/day | Intramuscularly injection | 4 weeks |
Methodological quality of the included studies
| Study | RCT | Adequate allocation | Method of randomization described | Operator blinded | Analyst blinded |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zhang Q et al. (2014) [ | Y | N | N | N | N |
| Qu Z et al. (2013) [ | Y | N | N | N | N |
| Song L et al. (2013) [ | Y | N | N | N | N |
| Cai A et al. (2011) [ | Y | N | N | N | N |
| Yang YJ et al. (2008) [ | Y | N | N | N | N |
RCT Randomized trial, Y Yes, N No
Comparisons of cardiac function measured by echocardiography and hemodynamic examination in animal model of acute myocardial infarction
| Study | Type of animal | Control LVEF (%) | Number | MSCs LVEF (%) | n | Ator + MSCs LVEF (%) | Number |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zhang Q et al. (2014) [ | Rat | 48.1 ± 5.2 | 10 | 51.9 ± 2.4 | 10 | 65.3 ± 5.3 | 10 |
| Qu Z et al. (2013) [ | Rabbit | 48.67 | 8 | 59.14 | 9 | 67.32 | 9 |
| Song L et al. (2013) [ | Swine | 43.16 ± 8.02 | 6 | 48.75 ± 12.64 | 6 | 49.76 ± 12.09 | 6 |
| Cai A et al. (2011) [ | Rat | 44.63 ± 3.22 | 8 | 46.17 ± 2.03 | 7 | 56.78 ± 3.66 | 7 |
| Yang YJ et al. (2008) [ | Swine | 42.0 ± 7.1 | 6 | 41.3 ± 8.8 | 6 | 49.7 ± 10.4 | 7 |
LVEF (%) The left ventricular ejection fraction, (mean ± SD)
Fig. 2Forest plot showing the impact of MSCs therapy on LVEF improvement compared with controls
Fig. 3Forest plot showing the impact of MSCs + Ator therapy on LVEF improvement compared with controls
Fig. 4Forest plot showing the impact of MSCs + Ator therapy on LVEF improvement compared with that of MSCs therapy
Fig. 5Funnel plot for LVEF improvement between MSCs + ATOR group and MSCs group. No evidence for publication bias was found. SE, standard error; MD, mean difference