Can cell-based therapies bridge the gap between research and reality in the treatment of myocarditis? A systematic review and meta-analysis

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)

Introduction Myocarditis is a non-ischaemic myocardial injury caused by infectious agents, immune-mediated diseases, cardiotoxic drugs, and vaccines. Treatment options are largely supportive, with emphasis on close monitoring, exclusion of other diseases explaining symptoms, adherence to heart failure treatment recommendations, and consideration of etiology-directed interventions, if applicable, such as antiviral or immunosuppressive agents, steroids, discontinuation of antineoplastic therapy, and strategies to increase left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF). In this context, cell-based therapies (CBTs) have emerged as a new therapeutic strategy and were believed to fill this gap. However, results were inconsistent across studies, which necessitates the need for rigorous systematic reviews to analyze available evidence comprehensively. Methods The review protocol was registered on the PROSPERO website, and the study was conducted in accordance with PRISMA regulations. Searches were conducted in Embase, CINAHL Plus via EBSCO host, Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed. A total of 60 original papers published between 2004 and 2022 in 48 peer-reviewed journals were included in the meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of CBTs on the LV fractional shortening (LVFS), LVEF, capillary density (CD), inflammatory cell infiltration rate (ICIR), and fibrotic area (FA). The risk of

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.