Level B· Emerging clinical evidence with positive signalsClinical TrialPubMed

Cell therapy for heart disease after 15 years: Unmet expectations.

Nigro P., Bassetti B., Cavallotti L., Catto V., Carbucicchio C., Pompilio G.

Clinical Trial on Cardiovascular Disease, Scar, published in Pharmacol Res (2017) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level B· Emerging clinical evidence with positive signalsEvidence level of this study

Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.

  • 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
Clinical Trial
Journal
Pharmacol Res (2017)
Country
Netherlands
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
28235633
DOI
10.1016/j.phrs.2017.02.015

Abstract (original English)

Over the past two decades cardiac cell therapy (CCT) has emerged as a promising new strategy to cure heart diseases at high unmet need. Thousands of patients have entered clinical trials for acute or chronic heart conditions testing different cell types, including autologous or allogeneic bone marrow (BM)-derived mononuclear or selected cells, BM- or adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal cells, or cardiac resident progenitors based on their potential ability to regenerate scarred or dysfunctional myocardium. Nowadays, the original enthusiasm surrounding the regenerative medicine field has been cushioned by a cumulative body of evidence indicating an inefficient or modest efficacy of CCT in improving cardiac function, along with the continued lack of indisputable proof for long-term prognostic benefit. In this review, we have firstly comprehensively outlined the positive and negative results of cell therapy studies in patients with acute myocardial infarction, refractory angina and chronic heart failure. Next, we have discussed cell therapy- and patient-related variables (e.g. cell intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics as well as criteria of patient selection and proposed methodologies) that might have dampened the efficacy of past cell therapy trials. Finally, we have addressed critical factors to be considered before embarking on further clinical trials.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.

Evidence level

Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.

How we grade evidence
Angina PectorisCell- and Tissue-Based TherapyHeart FailureHumansMyocardial InfarctionPatient Selection

Browse all related research

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

Related research