Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsProspective StudyPubMed

First-in-man Safety and Efficacy of the Adipose Graft Transposition Procedure (AGTP) in Patients With a Myocardial Scar.

Bayes-Genis A., Gastelurrutia P., Cámara ML., Teis A., Lupón J., Llibre C.

Prospective Study with a reported sample of 5 on Cardiovascular Disease, Scar, published in EBioMedicine (2016) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsEvidence level of this study

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

  • 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
Prospective Study
Journal
EBioMedicine (2016)
Country
Netherlands
Reported sample size
5
Source database
PubMed
PMID
27322478
DOI
10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.03.027
NCT
NCT01473433

Abstract (original English)

The present study evaluates the safety and efficacy of the Adipose Graft Transposition Procedure (AGTP) as a biological regenerative innovation for patients with a chronic myocardial scar. This prospective, randomized single-center controlled study included 10 patients with established chronic transmural myocardial scars. Candidates for myocardial revascularization were randomly allocated into two treatment groups. In the control arm (n=5), the revascularizable area was treated with CABG and the non-revascularizable area was left untouched. Patients in the AGTP-treated arm (n=5) were treated with CABG and the non-revascularizable area was covered by a biological adipose graft. The primary endpoint was the appearance of adverse effects derived from the procedure including hospital admissions and death, and 24-hour Holter monitoring arrhythmias at baseline, 1week, and 3 and 12months. Secondary endpoints of efficacy were assessed by cardiac MRI. No differences in safety were observed between groups in terms of clinical or arrhythmic events. On follow-up MRI testing, participants in the AGTP-treated arm showed a borderline smaller left ventricular end systolic volume (LVESV; p=0.09) and necrosis ratio (p=0.06) at 3months but not at 12months. The AGTP-treated patient with the largest necrotic area and most dilated chambers experienced a noted improvement in necrotic mass size (-10.8

What this study does not prove

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

Evidence level

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

How we grade evidence
Adipose TissueAgedCardiac VolumeCicatrixCoronary Artery BypassHumansMaleMiddle AgedMyocardial InfarctionProspective Studies

Browse all related research

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

Related research