Clinical experience with cryopreserved mesenchymal stem cells for cardiovascular applications: 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)

Background As living biodrugs, mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have progressed to phase 3 clinical trials for cardiovascular applications. However, their limited immediate availability hampers their routine clinical use. Aim To validate our hypothesis that cryopreserved MSCs ( Cryo MSCs) are as safe and effective as freshly cultured MSC counterparts but carry logistical advantages. Methods Four databases were systematically reviewed for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the safety and efficacy of Cryo MSCs from various tissue sources in treating patients with heart disease. A subgroup analysis was performed based on MSC source and post-thaw cell viability to determine treatment effects across different Cryo MSCs sources and viability status. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) and odds ratios were calculated to measure changes in the estimated treatment effects. All statistical analyses were performed using RevMan version 5.4.1 software. Results Seven RCTs (285 patients) met the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis. During short-term follow-up, Cryo MSCs demonstrated a significant 2.11% improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) [WMD (95%CI) = 2.11 (0.66-3.56), P = 0.004, I 2 = 1%], with umbilical cord-derived MSCs being the most effective cell type. However, the significant effect on LVEF was not sustained over the 12 months 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.