Cardiac Repair and Clinical Outcomes of Stem Cell Therapy in Heart Failure: 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)

Background While heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remains a major global health burden, mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy has emerged as a promising intervention designed to improve cardiac function and reduce morbidity among patients unresponsive to conventional treatments. MSC therapy has shown promise by targeting left ventricular pressure and improving wall thickness, contributing to reductions in HF-related morbidity and mortality rates. This systematic review and meta-analysis bridges a gap in current research through a focused examination of the most recent clinical trials to cohesively assess MSC therapy in HFrEF patients. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials published from 2018 onwards, which were obtained from multiple databases such as PUBMED, Scopus, EBSCO Medline, EBSCO CINAHL Science Direct, and the Cochrane Library. This review investigates the efficacy and safety outcomes of MSC therapy in patients above 18 years of age with a known diagnosis of heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The primary outcome was the change in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Secondary outcomes encompassed several efficacy outcomes, such as Global Circumferential strain (GCS), the 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), Quality of Life (QoL), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). A PRISMA flow diagram

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.