Impact of Cell Therapy on Myocardial Perfusion and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Angina Refractory to Medical Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: The effect of stem/progenitor cells on myocardial perfusion and clinical outcomes in patients with refractory angina remains unclear because studies published to date have been small phase I-II trials. OBJECTIVE: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the effect of cell-based therapy in patients with refractory angina who were ineligible for coronary revascularization. METHODS AND RESULTS: Several data sources were searched from inception to September 2015, which yielded 6 studies. The outcomes pooled were indices of angina (anginal episodes, Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina class, exercise tolerance, and antianginal medications), myocardial perfusion, and clinical end points. We combined the reported clinical outcomes (myocardial infarction, cardiac-related hospitalization, and mortality) into a composite end point (major adverse cardiac events). Mean difference (MD), standardized mean differences, or odds ratio were calculated to assess relevant outcomes. Our analysis shows an improvement in anginal episodes (MD, -7.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], -15.22 to -0.41), use of antianginal medications (standardized MD, -0.59; 95% CI, -1.03 to -0.14), Canadian Cardiovascular Society class (MD, -0.58; 95% CI, -1.00 to -0.16), exercise tolerance (standardized MD, 0.331; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.55), and myocardial perfusion (standardized MD, -0.49; 95% CI, -0.76 to -0.21) and a decreased risk of major adverse cardiac events (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.98) and arrhythmias (odds ratio, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.98) in cell-treated patients when compared with patients on maximal medical therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis indicates that cell-based therapies are not only safe but also lead to an improvement in indices of angina, relevant clinical outcomes, and myocardial perfusion in patients with refractory angina. These encouraging results suggest that larger, phase III randomized controlled trials are in order to conclusively determine the effect of stem/progenitor cells in refractory angina.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".