Mesenchymal Stem Cells Transplantation in Intracerebral Hemorrhage: Application and Challenges
Gong YH., Hao SL., Wang BC.
Narrative Review, published in Front Cell Neurosci (2021) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
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
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
- Front Cell Neurosci (2021)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 33841103
- PMCID
- PMC8024645
- DOI
- 10.3389/fncel.2021.653367
- Citations
- 20
Abstract (original English)
Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is one of the leading causes of death and long-term disability worldwide. Mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapies have demonstrated improved outcomes for treating ICH-induced neuronal defects, and the neural network reconstruction and neurological function recovery were enhanced in rodent ICH models through the mechanisms of neurogenesis, angiogenesis, anti-inflammation, and anti-apoptosis. However, many key issues associated with the survival, differentiation, and safety of grafted MSCs after ICH remain to be resolved, which hinder the clinical translation of MSC therapy. Herein, we reviewed an overview of the research status of MSC transplantation after ICH in different species including rodents, swine, monkey, and human, and the challenges for MSC-mediated ICH recovery from pathological microenvironment have been summarized. Furthermore, some efficient strategies for the outcome improvement of MSC transplantation were proposed.
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 evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.