Cardiopoietic Stem Cell Therapy in Ischaemic Heart Failure: Long-Term Clinical Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study aims to explore long-term clinical outcomes of cardiopoiesis-guided stem cell therapy for ischaemic heart failure assessed in the Congestive Heart Failure Cardiopoietic Regenerative Therapy (CHART-1) trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: CHART-1 is a multinational, randomized, and double-blind trial conducted in 39 centres in heart failure patients (n = 315) on standard-of-care therapy. The 'active' group received cardiopoietic stem cells delivered intramyocardially using a retention-enhanced catheter. The 'control' group underwent patient-level sham procedure. Patients were followed up to 104 weeks. In the entire study population, results of the primary hierarchical composite outcome were maintained neutral at Week 52 [Mann-Whitney estimator 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45-0.59, P = 0.51]. Landmark analyses suggested late clinical benefit in patients with significant left ventricular enlargement receiving adequate dosing. Specifically, beyond 100 days of follow-up, patients with left ventricular end-diastolic volume of 200-370 mL treated with ≤19 injections of cardiopoietic stem cells showed reduced risk of death or cardiovascular hospitalization (hazard ratio 0.38, 95% CI 0.16-0.91, P = 0.031) and cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio 0.28, 95% CI 0.09-0.94, P = 0.040). Cardiopoietic stem cell therapy was well tolerated long term with no difference in safety readouts compared with sham at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinal follow-up documents that cardiopoietic stem cell therapy is overall safe, and post hoc analyses suggest benefit in an ischaemic heart failure subpopulation defined by advanced left ventricular enlargement on tolerable stem cell dosing. The long-term clinical follow-up thus offers guidance for future targeted trials.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".