Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Characteristics and Regenerative Potential in Cardiovascular Disease: Implications for Cellular Therapy
van Rhijn-Brouwer FCC., Gremmels H., Fledderus JO., Verhaar MC.
Narrative Review, published in Cell Transplant (2018) — 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
- Cell Transplant (2018)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 29895169
- PMCID
- PMC6047272
- DOI
- 10.1177/0963689717738257
- Citations
- 21
Abstract (original English)
Administration of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) is a promising strategy to treat cardiovascular disease (CVD). As progenitor cells may be negatively affected by both age and comorbidity, characterization of MSC function is important to guide decisions regarding use of allogeneic or autologous cells. Definitive answers on which factors affect MSC function can also aid in selecting which MSC donors would yield the most therapeutically efficacious MSCs. Here we provide a narrative review of MSC function in CVD based on a systematic search. A total of 41 studies examining CVD-related MSC (dys)function were identified. These data show that MSC characteristics and regenerative potential are often affected by CVD. However, studies presented conflicting results, and directed assessment of MSC parameters relevant to regenerative medicine applications was lacking in many studies. The predictive ability of in vitro assays for in vivo efficacy was rarely assessed. There was no correlation between quality of study reporting and study findings. Age mismatch was also not associated with study findings or effect size. Future research should focus on assays that assess regenerative potential in MSCs and parameters that relate to clinical success.
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.