Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceRandomized Controlled TrialEurope PMC

Stem cell treatment for acute myocardial infarction

Fisher SA., Zhang H., Doree C., Mathur A., Martin-Rendon E.

Randomized Controlled Trial with a reported sample of 2732 on Cardiovascular Disease, Stroke Research, published in Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2015) — 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 (2015)
Reported sample size
2732
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
26419913
PMCID
PMC8572033
DOI
10.1002/14651858.cd006536.pub4
Citations
95

Abstract (original English)

Background Cell transplantation offers a potential therapeutic approach to the repair and regeneration of damaged vascular and cardiac tissue after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). This has resulted in multiple randomised controlled trials (RCTs) across the world. Objectives To determine the safety and efficacy of autologous adult bone marrow stem cells as a treatment for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), focusing on clinical outcomes. Search methods This Cochrane review is an update of a previous version (published in 2012). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1950 to March 2015), EMBASE (1974 to March 2015), CINAHL (1982 to March 2015) and the Transfusion Evidence Library (1980 to March 2015). In addition, we searched several international and ongoing trial databases in March 2015 and handsearched relevant conference proceedings to January 2011. Selection criteria RCTs comparing autologous bone marrow-derived cells with no cells in patients diagnosed with AMI were eligible. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened all references, assessed the risk of bias of the included trials and extracted data. We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models throughout. We analysed outcomes at short-term (less than 12 months) and long-term (12 months or more) follow-up. Dichotomous outcomes

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
HumansMyocardial InfarctionRecurrenceStroke VolumeHospitalizationStem Cell TransplantationRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Browse all related research

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

Related research