Adult Stem Cell Therapy and Heart Failure, 2000 to 2016: A Systematic Review

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

• Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
• Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
• Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
• Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
• Emerging · Emerging topic under active research

Abstract (original English)

Importance Stem cell therapy is a promising treatment strategy for patients with heart failure, which accounts for more than 10% of deaths in the United States annually. Despite more than a decade of research, further investigation is still needed to determine whether stem cell regenerative therapy is an effective treatment strategy and can be routinely implemented in clinical practice. Objective To describe the progress in cardiac stem cell regenerative therapy using adult stem cells and to highlight the merits and limitations of clinical trials performed to date. Evidence review Information for this review was obtained through a search of PubMed and the Cochrane database for English-language studies published between January 1, 2000, and July 26, 2016. Twenty-nine randomized clinical trials and 7 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included in this review. Findings Although adult stem cells were once believed to have the ability to create new heart tissue, preclinical studies suggest that these cells release cardioprotective paracrine factors that activate endogenous pathways, leading to myocardial repair. Subsequent randomized clinical trials, most of which used autologous bone marrow mononuclear cells, have found only a modest benefit in patients receiving stem cell therapy. The lack of a significant benefit may result from variations in trial methods, discrepancies i

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.