MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cardiac regeneration by intramyocardial stem cell therapy: clinical development

2008· article· en· W1800829349 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gustav Steinhoff

Bibliographic record

VenueXenotransplantation · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEjection fractionCardiologyStem-cell therapyCell therapyInternal medicineCoronary artery diseaseProgenitor cellArteryCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyStem cellPerfusionBone marrowMyocardial infarctionHeart failureClinical trialTransplantationSurgeryAngina

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiac stem cell therapy provides novel therapeutic options for chronic ischemic heart disease, but the potential of autologous human bone marrow progenitor cells remains to be evaluated for chronic ischemic cardiac disease. In a clinical phase I trial, which was started in June 2001, we first assessed the feasibility and safety of intramyocardial CD133 + bone marrow cell injection together with coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) in chronic ischemic heart disease. In the initial safety study, we treated 15 patients and found that left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) increased significantly from 39.0 ± 8.7% pre‐operatively to 50.2 ± 8.5% at 6 months and 47.9 ± 6.0% at 18 months ( F = 6.03, P = .012, repeated‐measures ANOVA). No procedure‐related complications were observed for up to 3 years. In a subsequent prospective randomized controlled Phase II efficacy trial, 40 patients received either CABG and cell therapy or CABG alone. Here, we observed that in the CABG & cell therapy group, LVEF increased from 37.4 ± 8.4% to 47.1 ± 8.3% at 6 months ( F = 24.16,P < .0001, repeated‐measures ANOVA), whereas from 37.9 ± 10.3% to 41.3 ± 9.1% in CABG‐only group ( F = 7.72, P = .012). LVEF was significantly higher at 6 months in the CABG & cell therapy group than CABG only (P = .03). Similarly, perfusion in the infarcted myocardium improved more in CABG & cell‐treated patients than in CABG‐only patients. Follow‐up time currently ranges between 27 and 62 months with mean follow up of 44 ± 12 months and encompasses a total of 572 patient months (as of April 2007). In these patients no relevant ventricular arrhythmia was recorded at any time point. There were no adverse tissue changes (e.g. intramyocardial calcification or tumor formation) in the computed tomography. To date long‐term follow‐up functional tests are proceeding. From 35 patients who were treated with stem cell injection (phase I and phase II), one was excluded from the study and two deaths occurred as mentioned above. Among 32 patients remained in the study 13 patients underwent long‐term safety investigations as of April 2007. For further clinical introduction a phase III study is planned to be started in summer 2008 including the heart center in Berlin (DHZB), Hannover (MHH), and Rostock. This will be a placebo controlled, prospective, randomized, double‐blind multicenter, phase III, clinical trial investigating the effects of intramyocardial injection of 5 ml CD133 + bone marrow cells or placebo in 142 patients with coronary artery disease scheduled for CABG surgery. Patients will be randomized to one of the two treatment groups (CD133 + or placebo) in a 1 : 1 ratio. Intramyocardial highly purified CD133 + bone marrow stem cell delivery in CABG patients is safe and provides beneficial effects, though it remains to be proven whether these effects produce a lasting clinical advantage. This therapeutical experience opens a clinical window for cardiac cell therapy as a standard therapy in chronic ischemic heart disease involving primary isolated stem cells. Improved application techniques of primary, cultured, and modified stem cells may prompt the way to establish new treatment possibilities for congenital and adult cardiac disease in the future.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueXenotransplantationSame topicTissue Engineering and Regenerative MedicineFrench-language works237,207