Level B· Emerging clinical evidence with positive signalsClinical TrialEurope PMC

Stem and progenitor cell-based therapy in ischaemic heart disease: promise, uncertainties, and challenges

Tongers J., Losordo DW., Landmesser U.

Clinical Trial on Cardiovascular Disease, published in Eur Heart J (2011) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level B· Emerging clinical evidence with positive signalsEvidence level of this study

Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.

  • 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
Clinical Trial
Journal
Eur Heart J (2011)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
21362705
PMCID
PMC3094549
DOI
10.1093/eurheartj/ehr018
Citations
170

Abstract (original English)

In the absence of effective endogenous repair mechanisms after cardiac injury, cell-based therapies have rapidly emerged as a potential novel therapeutic approach in ischaemic heart disease. After the initial characterization of putative endothelial progenitor cells and their potential to promote cardiac neovascularization and to attenuate ischaemic injury, a decade of intense research has examined several novel approaches to promote cardiac repair in adult life. A variety of adult stem and progenitor cells from different sources have been examined for their potential to promote cardiac repair and regeneration. Although early, small-scale clinical studies underscored the potential effects of cell-based therapy largely by using bone marrow (BM)-derived cells, subsequent randomized-controlled trials have revealed mixed results that might relate, at least in part, to differences in study design and techniques, e.g. differences in patient population, cell sources and preparation, and endpoint selection. Recent meta-analyses have supported the notion that administration of BM-derived cells may improve cardiac function on top of standard therapy. At this stage, further optimization of cell-based therapy is urgently needed, and finally, large-scale clinical trials are required to eventually proof its clinical efficacy with respect to outcomes, i.e. morbidity and mortality. Despite all

What this study does not prove

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

Evidence level

Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.

How we grade evidence
Myoblasts, SkeletalPluripotent Stem CellsHumansMyocardial IschemiaMyocardial InfarctionAcute DiseaseChronic DiseaseGlycoproteinsPeptidesAntigens, CD

Browse all related research

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

Related research