SVF
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceRandomized Controlled TrialEurope PMC

Stem cell therapy for dilated cardiomyopathy

Diaz-Navarro R., Urrútia G., Cleland JG., Poloni D., Villagran F., Acosta-Dighero R.

Randomized Controlled Trial with a reported sample of 762 on Cardiovascular Disease, Scar, published in Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2021) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceEvidence level of this study

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
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
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal
Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2021)
Reported sample size
762
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
34286511
PMCID
PMC8406792
DOI
10.1002/14651858.cd013433.pub2
Citations
12

Abstract (original English)

Background Stem cell therapy (SCT) has been proposed as an alternative treatment for dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), nonetheless its effectiveness remains debatable. Objectives To assess the effectiveness and safety of SCT in adults with non-ischaemic DCM. Search methods We searched CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and Embase for relevant trials in November 2020. We also searched two clinical trials registers in May 2020. Selection criteria Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing stem/progenitor cells with no cells in adults with non-ischaemic DCM. We included co-interventions such as the administration of stem cell mobilizing agents. Studies were classified and analysed into three categories according to the comparison intervention, which consisted of no intervention/placebo, cell mobilization with cytokines, or a different mode of SCT. The first two comparisons (no cells in the control group) served to assess the efficacy of SCT while the third (different mode of SCT) served to complement the review with information about safety and other information of potential utility for a better understanding of the effects of SCT. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened all references for eligibility, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. We undertook a quantitative evaluation of data using random-effects meta-analys

What this study does not prove

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

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.

How we grade evidence
HumansCardiomyopathy, DilatedGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating FactorPlacebosStem Cell TransplantationSeverity of Illness IndexCause of DeathQuality of LifeArrhythmias, CardiacRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Systemic / IVCardiovascular DiseaseScar
View on PubMedFull text on Europe PMCDOI

Browse all related research

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

View all: topic “stem therapy dilated”View all: author diaz-navarroView all: year 2021

Related research