Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesLaboratory StudyPubMed

Therapeutic effects of adipose derived fresh stromal vascular fraction-containing stem cells versus cultured adipose derived mesenchymal stem cells on rescuing heart function in rat after acute myocardial infarction.

Sheu JJ., Lee MS., Wallace CG., Chen KH., Sung PH., Chua S.

Laboratory Study with a reported sample of 48 on Cardiovascular Disease, Chronic Inflammation, published in Am J Transl Res (2019) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

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
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
Laboratory Study
Journal
Am J Transl Res (2019)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
48
Source database
PubMed
PMID
30787970
PMCID
PMC6357301
Citations
25

Abstract (original English)

We tested the hypothesis that adipose-derived fresh stromal vascular fraction (SVF) is non-inferior to conventional adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cell (ADMSC) therapy for improving left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in rat after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Male-adult SD rats (n = 48) were categorized into group 1 (sham control), AMI, AMI + ADMSCs (1.2 × 10 6 ) cells] and AMI + SVF (1.2 × 10 6 ) cells]. Flow cytometric and qPCR analyses showed that the expressions of surface biomarkers for endothelial progenitor cells, and cardiac-stem cells were significantly higher in the SVF population than in the ADMSC population, whereas MSCs showed a reversed pattern between these two groups (all P < 0.001). By day-42 after AMI, LVEF was highest in SC, lowest in AMI, and significantly higher in AMI + SVF than in AMI + ADMSCs (P < 0.0001). Protein expression indicating angiogenesis, anti-inflammatory/anti-apoptotic, mitochondrial/bioenergy-integrity and antifibrotic biomarkers showed an identical pattern, whereas protein expressions for inflammatory, apoptotic and pressure-overload/heart failure biomarkers exhibited an opposite pattern to LVEF among the four groups (all P < 0.001). Histopathology displayed that LV infarction/fibrotic area/collagen-deposition areas, cellular expressions of DNA-damage, and inflammatory biomarkers exhibited an opposite pattern, whereas cellula

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

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

Related research