Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMC

Can we stop one heart from breaking: triumphs and challenges in cardiac reprogramming

Spurlock B., Liu J., Qian L.

Narrative Review on Cardiovascular Disease, Scar, published in Curr Opin Genet Dev (2023) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • 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
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Narrative Review
Journal
Curr Opin Genet Dev (2023)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
37797568
PMCID
PMC10872832
DOI
10.1016/j.gde.2023.102116
Citations
2

Abstract (original English)

Ischemic cardiac injury causes irreversible muscle loss and scarring, but recent years have seen dramatic advances in cardiac reprogramming, the field focused on regenerating cardiac muscle. With SARS-CoV2 increasing the age-adjusted cardiovascular disease mortality rate, it is worth evaluating the state of this field. Here, we summarize novel innovations in reprogramming strategies, insights into their mechanisms, and technologies for factor delivery. We also propose a broad model of reprogramming to suggest directions for future research. Poet Emily Dickinson wrote, "If I can stop one heart from breaking, I shall not live in vain." Today, researchers studying cardiac reprogramming view this line as a call to action to translate this revolutionary approach into life-saving treatments for patients with cardiovascular diseases.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence
MyocardiumMyocytes, CardiacHumansCardiovascular DiseasesRNA, ViralCellular Reprogramming

Browse all related research

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

Related research