Safety and Efficacy of Transendocardial Stem Cells Therapy in Chronic Ischemic Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

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)

Introduction Chronic ischemic heart failure is a major global health issue despite advancements in therapy. Stem cell (SC) therapy has emerged as a potential treatment, but its effectiveness remains uncertain. This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the current evidence on SC therapy's efficacy. Methods We conducted a comprehensive literature search in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to April 2024. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with blinded designs, focusing on patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) treated with mesenchymal stem cells compared to placebo or sham interventions via percutaneous endomyocardial catheter systems. Data extraction, performed independently by two authors, focused on safety and efficacy variables. The meta-analysis used a random-effects model, with sensitivity analyses to address study heterogeneity. Results Twenty studies were included in the meta-analysis. Significant improvements were observed in the stem cell group for left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) (pooled effect size -7.59, 95% CI [-12.28 to -2.89], P=0.002) and stress SPECT outcomes (pooled effect size - 5.33, 95% CI [-6.73 to -3.93], P Conclusion Transendocardial SC therapy shows promise in improving certain cardiac parameters, though its impact on LVEF and MVO2 remains inconclusive, indicating the need for

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.