Combined Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Therapy and Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. A Randomized Controlled Trial in Sheep
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rationale Mesenchymal stromal cell (MSC) therapy is a promising intervention for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), although trials to date have not investigated its use alongside extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Recent preclinical studies have suggested that combining these interventions may attenuate the efficacy of ECMO. Objectives To determine the safety and efficacy of MSC therapy in a model of ARDS and ECMO. Methods ARDS was induced in 14 sheep, after which they were established on venovenous ECMO. Subsequently, they received either endobronchial induced pluripotent stem cell–derived human MSCs (hMSCs) (n = 7) or cell-free carrier vehicle (vehicle control; n = 7). During ECMO, a low Vt ventilation strategy was employed in addition to protocolized hemodynamic support. Animals were monitored and supported for 24 hours. Lung tissue, bronchoalveolar fluid, and plasma were analyzed, in addition to continuous respiratory and hemodynamic monitoring. Measurements and Main Results The administration of hMSCs did not improve oxygenation (PaO2/FiO2 mean difference = −146 mm Hg; P = 0.076) or pulmonary function. However, histological evidence of lung injury (lung injury score mean difference = −0.07; P = 0.04) and BAL IL-8 were reduced. In addition, hMSC-treated animals had a significantly lower cumulative requirement for vasopressor. Despite endobronchial administration, animals treated with hMSCs had a significant elevation in transmembrane oxygenator pressure gradients. This was accompanied by more pulmonary artery thromboses and adherent hMSCs found on explanted oxygenator fibers. Conclusions Endobronchial hMSC therapy in an ovine model of ARDS and ECMO can impair membrane oxygenator function and does not improve oxygenation. These data do not recommend the safe use of hMSCs during venovenous ECMO.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".