0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Review Article |

Adult Bone Marrow–Derived Cells for Cardiac Repair:  A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis FREE

Ahmed Abdel-Latif, MD; Roberto Bolli, MD; Imad M. Tleyjeh, MD, MSc; Victor M. Montori, MD, MSc; Emerson C. Perin, MD; Carlton A. Hornung, PhD, MPH; Ewa K. Zuba-Surma, PhD; Mouaz Al-Mallah, MD; Buddhadeb Dawn, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Division of Cardiology and the Institute of Molecular Cardiology (Drs Abdel-Latif, Bolli, Zuba-Surma, and Dawn) and Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, School of Public Health and Information Sciences (Dr Hornung), University of Louisville, Louisville, Ky; Knowledge and Encounter Research Unit, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minn (Drs Tleyjeh and Montori); King Fahd Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (Dr Tleyjeh); Department of Cardiology, University of Texas, Houston (Dr Perin); and Division of Cardiovascular Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (Dr Al-Mallah).


Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(10):989-997. doi:10.1001/archinte.167.10.989.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background  The results from small clinical studies suggest that therapy with adult bone marrow (BM)–derived cells (BMCs) reduces infarct size and improves left ventricular function and perfusion. However, the effects of BMC transplantation in patients with ischemic heart disease remains unclear.

Methods  We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (through July 2006) for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies of BMC transplantation to treat ischemic heart disease. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis across eligible studies measuring the same outcomes.

Results  Eighteen studies (N = 999 patients) were eligible. The adult BMCs included BM mononuclear cells, BM mesenchymal stem cells, and BM-derived circulating progenitor cells. Compared with controls, BMC transplantation improved left ventricular ejection fraction (pooled difference, 3.66%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.93% to 5.40%; P<.001); reduced infarct scar size (−5.49%; 95% CI, −9.10% to −1.88%; P = .003); and reduced left ventricular end-systolic volume (−4.80 mL; 95% CI, −8.20 to −1.41 mL; P = .006).

Conclusions  The available evidence suggests that BMC transplantation is associated with modest improvements in physiologic and anatomic parameters in patients with both acute myocardial infarction and chronic ischemic heart disease, above and beyond conventional therapy. Therapy with BMCs seems safe. These results support conducting large randomized trials to evaluate the impact of BMC therapy vs the standard of care on patient-important outcomes.

Figures in this Article

Ischemic heart disease (IHD) is a major cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide and accounts for approximately 20% of all deaths in the United States.13 Despite significant advances in medical therapy and interventional strategy, the prognosis of millions of patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and ischemic cardiomyopathy remains dismal.4,5 Although the underlying mechanism remains controversial, numerous studies in animals have documented that transplantation of bone marrow (BM)–derived cells (BMCs) following acute MI and in ischemic cardiomyopathy is associated with a reduction in infarct scar size and improvements in left ventricular (LV) function and perfusion.6 In humans, transplantation of BMCs and BM-derived circulating progenitor cells (CPCs) in patients with acute MI as well as chronic IHD has yielded similar encouraging results.7,8

However, these studies in humans are heterogeneous in their methods and have yielded disparate results. These studies have each enrolled a small number of patients and have fallen short of providing conclusive results. Thus, the extent to which BMC transplantation can improve outcomes in patients with IHD remains unclear. To our knowledge, there are no comprehensive syntheses of these data. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis to critically evaluate and summarize the potential therapeutic benefits of BMC transplantation for cardiac repair in patients with IHD.

REVIEW QUESTION AND STUDY PROTOCOL

The review question was to what extent does BMC transplantation affect cardiovascular outcomes in patients with IHD? We report this protocol-driven systematic review according to the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE)9 and Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM)10 statements.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Two reviewers (A.A.-L. and I.M.T.) judged eligibility of studies in duplicate and independently. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies examining the effects of BMC transplantation on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with IHD. Because cytokines may exert cardiovascular effects, we excluded studies of cardiac repair solely via the mobilization of endogenous BMCs with systemic administration of cytokines.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE (January 1980 to July 2006), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (July 2006), EMBASE (January 1980 to July 2006), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health) (January 1982 to July 2006), the US Food and Drug Administration Web site (http://www.fda.gov), and BIOSIS Previews (January 1980 to July 2006) using the following database-appropriate terms: coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, stem cells, progenitor cells, bone marrow, circulating progenitor cells, myocardial regeneration, and cardiac repair. We sought additional studies by reviewing the reference lists of eligible studies and relevant review articles. The complete search strategy is available on request from the authors.

DATA ABSTRACTION

Two reviewers (A.A.-L. and I.M.T.) working in duplicate and independently used a standardized form to abstract the data from each study. The corresponding author (B.D.) solved disagreements that could not be solved by consensus. When necessary, LV end-diastolic volume was estimated from LV end-diastolic volume index, and infarct volume/mass was converted to infarct size expressed as a percentage of LV by calculating total LV myocardial volume from LV mass index. Data from echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging were considered equivalent. When both echocardiographic and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging functional data were available, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging data were preferentially used.

QUALITY ASSESSMENT

We used the criteria by Jüni et al11 to ascertain the methodological quality of included randomized trials11 and a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale12 to assess the quality of cohort studies.

DATA ANALYSIS
Meta-analyses

The main outcomes of our review were change from baseline in mean LV ejection fraction, infarct scar size, LV end-systolic volume, and LV end-diastolic volume. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses to pool these outcomes across included studies, estimating weighted mean differences between BMC-treated patients and control patients and their associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We estimated the proportion of between-study inconsistency due to true differences between studies (rather than differences due to random error or chance) using the I2 statistic,13 with values of 25%, 50%, and 75% considered low, moderate, and high, respectively. Funnel plots graphically explored publication bias. We used RevMan version 4.2.7 (Cochrane Collaboration, 2004) for these analyses.

Subgroup Analyses

We conducted planned subgroup analyses and tested for treatment-subgroup interactions. Planned subgroups comprised the types of study design (RCTs vs cohort studies); the clinical scenario in which BMCs were used (acute MI vs chronic IHD); timing of BMC transplantation after MI and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (<5 days vs within 5-30 days); the number of cells injected (above vs below the median of 80 × 106 BMCs used in the eligible studies); and the population of BMCs used (BM mononuclear cells vs nonmononuclear cells, including mesenchymal stem cells and BM-derived circulating progenitor cells). Because most of the included studies used the intracoronary route for BMC transplantation, the impact of the route of transplantation on outcomes could not be assessed.

SEARCH RESULTS

Of 213 articles retrieved during the initial search (Figure 1), 81 were not reports of original investigations (review articles and editorials), 95 were conducted in animals, 6 used mobilization rather than transplantation of BMCs, 6 lacked control groups, and 7 were performed in vitro. Eighteen studies (12 RCTs and 6 cohort studies) with a total of 999 patients were eligible for review. The interreviewer agreement on study eligibility was 100%.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Flow diagram of eligible studies of bone marrow–derived cells (BMCs) transplantation in patients with acute myocardial infarction and chronic ischemic heart disease. RCTs indicates randomized controlled trials.

Graphic Jump Location
STUDY CHARACTERISTICS

Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of all studies included in our meta-analysis. Notably, the sample size in each study was relatively small (range, 20-204 patients; median, 36 patients), and the follow-up duration was relatively short (range, 3-18 months; median, 4 months). There was considerable heterogeneity in the timing of cell transplantation after MI or percutaneous coronary intervention (range, 1 day to 81 months; median, 9.8 days) and in the number of BMCs used (range, 2 × 106 to 60 × 109 cells [median, 80 × 106 BMCs]).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Characteristics of Studies Included in the Meta-analysis
STUDY QUALITY

Table 2 describes the methodological quality of the RCTs, and Table 3 describes the quality of the cohort studies. All cohort studies and at least 6 RCTs failed to blind participants and caregivers, and at least 2 RCTs and 3 cohort studies failed to blind outcome assessors. The follow-up was complete in all eligible studies. The interreviewer agreement on these quality domains was greater than 90%.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Quality Assessment Scale for Randomized Controlled Trials Included in the Meta-analysis
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Modified Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale12 for Cohort Studies Included in the Meta-analysis
META-ANALYSES AND EFFICACY

Compared with control, BMC transplantation improved LV ejection fraction by 3.66% (95% CI, 1.93% to 5.40%; [I2 = 71%; P<.001]; Figure 2), reduced infarct scar size by 5.49% (95% CI, −9.10% to −1.88% [I2 = 66%; P = .003]; Figure 3); reduced LV end-systolic volume by 4.80 mL (95% CI, −8.20 to −1.41 mL; [I2 = 0%; P = .006]; Figure 4); and reduced LV end-diastolic volume by 1.92 mL (95% CI, −6.31 to 2.47 [I2 = 0%; P = .39]; Figure 5). We drew funnel plots to seek evidence of publication bias: where inconsistency was high, the funnel plots were not interpretable; where inconsistency was low, the funnel plots were inconclusive (available at: http://www.louisville.edu/medschool/medicine/cardiology/Archinternmed_2007_supplemental_data.pdf).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Forest plot of unadjusted difference in mean (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients treated with bone marrow–derived cells (BMCs) compared with controls. The figure shows the summary of cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Transplantation with BMCs resulted in a 3.66% (95% CI, 1.93% to 5.40%) increase in mean LVEF. The overall effect was statistically significant in favor of BMC therapy. AMI indicates acute myocardial infarction; CPCs, circulating progenitor cells; OMI, old myocardial infarction; and WMD, weighted mean difference.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.

Forest plot of unadjusted difference in mean (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) change in infarct scar size in patients treated with bone marrow–derived cells (BMCs) compared with controls. The figure shows the summary of cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Transplantation with BMCs resulted in a 5.49% (95% CI, −9.10% to −1.88%) decrease in mean infarct scar size. The overall effect was statistically significant in favor of BMC therapy. WMD indicates weighted mean difference.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 4.

Forest plot of unadjusted difference in mean (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) change in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) in patients treated with bone marrow–derived cells (BMCs) compared with controls. The figure shows the summary of cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Transplantation of BMCs resulted in a 4.80-mL (95% CI, −8.20 to −1.41 mL) decrease in LVESV. The overall effect was statistically significant in favor of BMC therapy. AMI indicates acute myocardial infarction; CPCs, circulating progenitor cells; OMI, old myocardial infarction; and WMD, weighted mean difference.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 5.

Forest plot of unadjusted difference in mean (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) change in left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) in patients treated with bone marrow–derived cells (BMCs) compared with controls. The figure shows the summary of cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). BMC transplantation resulted in a 1.92 mL (95% CI, −6.31 to 2.47) decrease in mean LVEDV. The overall effect was in favor of BMC therapy (not statistically significant). AMI indicates acute myocardial infarction; CPCs, circulating progenitor cells; OMI, old myocardial infarction; and WMD, weighted mean difference.

Graphic Jump Location
SUBGROUP ANALYSES AND SAFETY

We did not find any treatment-subgroup interaction through any of our planned subgroup analyses (Table 4).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Subgroup Analysis Examining the Impact of Study Design, Underlying Type of Cardiomyopathy, Timing of Transplantation, Number of BMCs Transplanted, and Type of BMCs Transplanted on Outcome Variables

The injection of BMCs was found to be safe without significantly greater risk of major local or systemic complications. Except for Bartunek et al,15 who reported a higher incidence of in-stent restenosis in the BM mononuclear cell–treated group (9 of 19 patients vs 4 of 16 patients in the control group), the rate of restenosis was comparable among BMC-treated and control patients. The incidence of other complications, such as recurrent angina, MI, and sustained or nonsustained supraventricular or ventricular arrhythmias, was not significantly different between BMC-treated patients and controls. A supplemental table of reported incidence of complications in BMC-treated patients and controls is available at: http://www.Louisville.edu/medschool/medicine/cardiology/Archinternmed_2007_supplemental_data.pdf.

This systematic review and meta-analysis, the first, to our knowledge, to comprehensively summarize the available evidence of BMC transplantation in patients with IHD, indicates that BMC transplantation in patients with IHD is apparently safe and leads to modest benefits beyond those achieved with revascularization and conventional pharmacotherapy. Our results indicate that BMC transplantation may improve LV ejection fraction, infarct scar size, and LV end-systolic volume. However, the mechanisms explaining these benefits remain unclear.

Although the plasticity of adult stem cells remains debatable, extensive data from animal models indicate that BMCs are capable of differentiating into cells of cardiac and vascular lineages.3238 Bone marrow–derived mesenchymal stem cells, mononuclear cells, and circulating endothelial progenitor cells have all been shown to differentiate into cardiomyocytes both in vitro and in vivo.7 Nevertheless, tracking cellular differentiation after transplantation in humans remains particularly difficult. Another potential mechanism is that transplanted BMCs may secrete a variety of growth factors and cytokines,39 thereby enhancing myocyte survival following ischemic injury and facilitating the migration of resident cardiac stem cells40 to the site of injury and their reparative activity. The finding of infarct scar size reduction with BMC therapy may signify new myocyte formation, superior preservation of existing myocytes, or both following BMC transplantation.

Beyond these mechanistic considerations, some technical issues remain unclear, such as the optimal number of BMCs, the optimal timing and route of transplantation, and the most effective type of BMC. Since only a small fraction of BMCs are retained in the myocardium following injection,41 we analyzed the pooled data based on the number of cells transplanted. There were no significant differences in outcomes between the groups that received less or more than the median number of cells. Although somewhat surprising, these findings perhaps underscore the importance of selective injection of the most efficacious cell subpopulation.

Furthermore, the impact of cell number may be affected by the timing42 and route41 of transplantation, both of which may influence cell retention. The retention of injected endothelial progenitor cells was much lower in sham-operated nude rats compared with nude rats 24 hours after acute MI.42 Furthermore, the benefits of BMC injection in the first few days after acute MI may be jeopardized by the local inflammation that renders the myocardium a hostile environment for the injected cells. In the Reinfusion of Enriched Progenitor Cells And Infarct Remodeling in Acute Myocardial Infarction (REPAIR-AMI) trial, the authors stratified data according to the time of BMC injection after acute MI.28 While there was no correlation between the timing of the procedure and LV contractile recovery in the placebo group, a significant correlation was observed in the BMC-treated group. Transplantation of BMCs was more beneficial when performed 5 days or later after acute MI.28 In our meta-analysis, injection of BMCs in the 5- to 30-day window resulted in a more than 3-fold greater reduction in infarct size and greater improvement in LV end-systolic volume compared with injection in the first 5 days after acute MI and/or percutaneous coronary intervention. Because the overall change in LV end-diastolic volume was not different between BMC-treated and control groups, a change in LV end-systolic volume may represent an improvement in global LV function. However, none of these interactions reached statistical significance, and the importance of these findings remains uncertain at this time. This lack of subgroup-treatment interaction may have resulted from a small number of studies with a small number of patients. Future meta-analyses with larger patient numbers or large randomized trials may identify potential interactions between treatment effects and the timing of BMC injection.

It is important to note that the majority of studies included in our review used unfractionated BM mononuclear cells18,20,2326,2830 and that BMC transplantation was reportedly safe in these studies. Although intracoronary injection of CD133+ BM mononuclear cells was associated with an increased incidence of in-stent restenosis,15 no other major adverse effects were noted in studies using different BMC populations. This safety profile of BMC transplantation as reported in these studies with follow-up durations of up to 18 months supports conducting further investigation of therapeutic efficacy. The possibility that reporting bias may be affecting the otherwise favorable safety picture emerging from our review, however, demands caution.

The duration of follow-up in the studies included in this meta-analysis was relatively short. Although the Transplantation of Progenitor Cells and Regeneration Enhancement in Acute Myocardial Infarction (TOPCARE-AMI) trial showed persistent benefits after 12 months of BMC and circulating progenitor cell therapy,43 a longer follow-up of 18 months failed to demonstrate statistically significant improvements with cell therapy in the Bone Marrow Transfer to Enhance ST-Elevation Infarct Regeneration (BOOST) study.24 Whether the benefits of BMC therapy are ephemeral remains to be assessed in larger trials with longer follow-up duration (eg, 5 years). Moreover, a single dose of BMCs may not be sufficient for myocardial repair, and repeated infusions may result in sustained benefits over a longer time frame, but this remains speculative. Genetic modifications of BMCs prior to transplantation may also potentially improve their regenerative capability.44 These avenues may be explored in future trials. Overall, our findings support the recent consensus statement on the use of autologous adult stem cells for cardiac repair by the task force of the European Society of Cardiology that called for a pragmatic approach for demonstrating the efficacy of stem cell therapy in myocardial repair in humans.45

Limitations in study quality (namely, lack of blinding), unexplained between-study inconsistency, sparse evidence, and indirectness of the outcomes (ie, exclusive reliance on surrogate outcomes) weaken the inferences. The methods for evaluating LV function, the type of BMC used, and the interval between acute MI and/or percutaneous coronary intervention and BMC transplantation varied among the included studies (Table 1), all of which are potential sources of heterogeneity. However, the consistency of the beneficial effect of BMCs in most of the prespecified primary end points and subgroups suggests that the association is valid. The fact that the beneficial effect of BMCs persisted across different study designs, BMC lines, timings and routes of transplantation, and clinical scenarios suggest that the association can cautiously be generalized to different patient populations.

We believe that combining data from RCTs and cohort studies was justified because for both designs patients were followed prospectively, accurate methods were used to assess the primary end points, and few patients if any were lost to follow-up. Importantly, the results were consistent even when the analysis was restricted to RCTs or cohort studies alone (Table 4 and Figures 2-5), strengthening the fact that the results of the meta-analysis are cautiously generalizable.

In conclusion, the results of our systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that BMC transplantation in patients with acute MI as well as chronic IHD is reportedly safe and is associated with modest improvements in LV ejection fraction, infarct scar size, and LV end-systolic volume, beyond those achieved with state-of-the-art therapy; however, there was no significant effect on LV end-diastolic volume. Although the benefits are modest, our results support the organization, funding, and conduct of larger randomized trials of BMC therapy designed to critically evaluate the long-term impact of BMC therapy on patient-important outcomes in patients with IHD.

Correspondence: Buddhadeb Dawn, MD, Division of Cardiology, 550 S Jackson St, Ambulatory Care Building, Third Floor, Louisville, KY 40292 (buddha@louisville.edu).

Accepted for Publication: January 24, 2007.

Author Contributions: Drs Abdel-Latif and Dawn had full access to all of the data in this study and take responsibility for data integrity and the accuracy of data analysis. Study concept and design: Abdel-Latif, Dawn, Bolli, Tleyjeh, and Hornung. Acquisition of data: Abdel-Latif, Tleyjeh, Perin, Zuba-Surma, Bolli, and Dawn. Analysis and interpretation of data: Abdel-Latif, Tleyjeh, Montori, Hornung, Perin, Bolli, Dawn, and Al-Mallah. Drafting of the manuscript: Abdel-Latif, Dawn, Zuba-Surma, Tleyjeh, Montori, Bolli, and Al-Mallah. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Dawn, Bolli, Montori, Abdel-Latif, Tleyjeh, Hornung, and Perin. Statistical analysis: Abdel-Latif, Montori, Tleyjeh, Hornung, and Dawn. Obtained funding: Bolli and Dawn. Administrative, technical, or material support: Bolli and Dawn. Study supervision: Dawn, Bolli, Hornung, and Perin.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Funding/Support: This meta-analysis and publication was supported in part by grants R01 HL-72410, HL-55757, HL-68088, HL-70897, HL-76794, and HL-78825 from the National Institutes of Health.

Additional Information: A supplementary table (reported incidence of complications in BMC-treated patients and controls) and figure (funnel plot [according to outcomes] for studies included in the meta-analysis) are available at: http://www.louisville.edu/medschool/medicine/cardiology/Archinternmed_2007_supplemental_data.pdf.

Miller  TDChristian  TFHopfenspirger  MRHodge  DOGersh  BJGibbons  RJ Infarct size after acute myocardial infarction measured by quantitative tomographic 99mtc sestamibi imaging predicts subsequent mortality. Circulation 1995;92334- 341
PubMed Link to Article
Myerburg  RJ Sudden cardiac death: exploring the limits of our knowledge. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2001;12369- 381
PubMed Link to Article
Pfeffer  MABraunwald  E Ventricular remodeling after myocardial infarction: experimental observations and clinical implications. Circulation 1990;811161- 1172
PubMed Link to Article
Levy  DKenchaiah  SLarson  MG  et al.  Long-term trends in the incidence of and survival with heart failure. N Engl J Med 2002;3471397- 1402
PubMed Link to Article
Roger  VLWeston  SARedfield  MM  et al.  Trends in heart failure incidence and survival in a community-based population. JAMA 2004;292344- 350
PubMed Link to Article
Dawn  BBolli  R Adult bone marrow–derived cells: regenerative potential, plasticity, and tissue commitment. Basic Res Cardiol 2005;100494- 503
PubMed Link to Article
Dawn  BZuba-Surma  EAbdel-Latif  ATiwari  SBolli  R Cardiac stem cell therapy for myocardial regeneration: a clinical perspective. Minerva Cardioangiol 2005;53549- 564
PubMed
Wollert  KCDrexler  H Clinical applications of stem cells for the heart. Circ Res 2005;96151- 163
PubMed Link to Article
Stroup  DFBerlin  JAMorton  SC  et al. Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) Group, Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA 2000;2832008- 2012
PubMed Link to Article
Moher  DCook  JEastwood  SOlkin  IRennie  DStroup  D Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet 1999;3541896- 1900
PubMed Link to Article
Jüni  PAltman  DEgger  M Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2001;32342- 46
PubMed Link to Article
Wells  GShea  BO'Connell  D  et al.  The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analysis.  Ottawa, Ontario The Ottawa Health Research Institute.http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/nosgen.doc. Accessed March 11, 2006
Higgins  JPThompson  SGDeeks  JJAltman  DG Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysis. BMJ 2003;327557- 560
PubMed Link to Article
Assmus  BHonold  JSchachinger  V  et al.  Transcoronary transplantation of progenitor cells after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2006;3551222- 1232
PubMed Link to Article
Bartunek  JVanderheyden  MVandekerckhove  B  et al.  Intracoronary injection of CD133-positive enriched bone marrow progenitor cells promotes cardiac recovery after recent myocardial infarction: feasibility and safety. Circulation 2005;112 ((suppl)) I178- I183
PubMed
Chen  SLFang  WWYe  F  et al.  Effect on left ventricular function of intracoronary transplantation of autologous bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 2004;9492- 95
PubMed Link to Article
Erbs  SLinke  AAdams  V  et al.  Transplantation of blood-derived progenitor cells after recanalization of chronic coronary artery occlusion: first randomized and placebo-controlled study. Circ Res 2005;97756- 762
PubMed Link to Article
Ge  JLi  YQian  J  et al.  Efficacy of emergent transcatheter transplantation of stem cells for treatment of acute myocardial infarction (TCT-STAMI). [published online ahead of print June 14, 2006] Heart 2006;921764- 1767
PubMed Link to Article
Hendrikx  MHensen  KClijsters  C  et al.  Recovery of regional but not global contractile function by the direct intramyocardial autologous bone marrow transplantation: results from a randomized controlled clinical trial. Circulation 2006;114 ((suppl)) I101- I107
Link to Article
Janssens  SDubois  CBogaert  J  et al.  Autologous bone marrow–derived stem-cell transfer in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2006;367113- 121
PubMed Link to Article
Kang  HLee  HNa  S  et al.  Differential effect of intracoronary infusion of mobilized peripheral blood stem cells by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on left ventricular function and remodeling in patients with acute myocardial infarction versus old myocardial infarction: the MAGIC Cell-3-DES randomized, controlled trial. Circulation 2006;114 ((suppl)) I145- I151
Katritsis  DGSotiropoulou  PAKarvouni  E  et al.  Transcoronary transplantation of autologous mesenchymal stem cells and endothelial progenitors into infarcted human myocardium. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2005;65321- 329
PubMed Link to Article
Lunde  KSolheim  SAakhus  S  et al.  Intracoronary injections of mononuclear bone marrow cells in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2006;3551199- 1209
PubMed Link to Article
Meyer  GPWollert  KCLotz  J  et al.  Intracoronary bone marrow cell transfer after myocardial infarction: eighteen months' follow-up data from the randomized, controlled BOOST (BOne marrOw transfer to enhance ST-elevation infarct regeneration) trial. Circulation 2006;1131287- 1294
PubMed Link to Article
Mocini  DStaibano  MMele  L  et al.  Autologous bone marrow mononuclear cell transplantation in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. Am Heart J 2006;151192- 197
PubMed Link to Article
Perin  ECDohmann  HFBorojevic  R  et al.  Improved exercise capacity and ischemia 6 and 12 months after transendocardial injection of autologous bone marrow mononuclear cells for ischemic cardiomyopathy. Circulation 2004;110 ((suppl 1)) II213- II218
PubMed Link to Article
Ruan  WPan  CHuang  GLi  YGe  JShu  X Assessment of left ventricular segmental function after autologous bone marrow stem cells transplantation in patients with acute myocardial infarction by tissue tracking and strain imaging. Chin Med J (Engl) 2005;1181175- 1181
PubMed
Schächinger  VErbs  SElsasser  A  et al.  Intracoronary bone marrow–derived progenitor cells in acute myocardial in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2006;3551210- 1221
PubMed Link to Article
Strauer  BEBrehm  MZeus  T  et al.  Repair of infarcted myocardium by autologous intracoronary mononuclear bone marrow cell transplantation in humans. Circulation 2002;1061913- 1918
PubMed Link to Article
Strauer  BEBrehm  MZeus  T  et al.  Regeneration of human infarcted heart muscle by intracoronary autologous bone marrow cell transplantation in chronic coronary artery disease: the IACT Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;461651- 1658
PubMed Link to Article
Li  ZQZhang  MJing  YZ  et al.  The clinical study of autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation by intracoronory infusion in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). [published online ahead of print July 5, 2006] Int J Cardiol 2007;11552- 56
PubMed Link to Article
Makino  SFukuda  KMiyoshi  S  et al.  Cardiomyocytes can be generated from marrow stromal cells in vitro. J Clin Invest 1999;103697- 705
PubMed Link to Article
Tomita  SLi  RKWeisel  RD  et al.  Autologous transplantation of bone marrow cells improves damaged heart function. Circulation 1999;100 ((suppl)) II247- II256
PubMed Link to Article
Orlic  DKajstura  JChimenti  S  et al.  Mobilized bone marrow cells repair the infarcted heart, improving function and survival. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001;9810344- 10349
PubMed Link to Article
Toma  CPittenger  MFCahill  KSByrne  BJKessler  PD Human mesenchymal stem cells differentiate to a cardiomyocyte phenotype in the adult murine heart. Circulation 2002;10593- 98
PubMed Link to Article
Kawada  HFujita  JKinjo  K  et al.  Nonhematopoietic mesenchymal stem cells can be mobilized and differentiate into cardiomyocytes after myocardial infarction. Blood 2004;1043581- 3587
PubMed Link to Article
Hattan  NKawaguchi  HAndo  K  et al.  Purified cardiomyocytes from bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells produce stable intracardiac grafts in mice. Cardiovasc Res 2005;65334- 344
PubMed Link to Article
Orlic  DKajstura  JChimenti  S  et al.  Bone marrow cells regenerate infarcted myocardium. Nature 2001;410701- 705
PubMed Link to Article
Urbich  CAicher  AHeeschen  C  et al.  Soluble factors released by endothelial progenitor cells promote migration of endothelial cells and cardiac resident progenitor cells. J Mol Cell Cardiol 2005;39733- 742
PubMed Link to Article
Beltrami  APBarlucchi  LTorella  D  et al.  Adult cardiac stem cells are multipotent and support myocardial regeneration. Cell 2003;114763- 776
PubMed Link to Article
Hofmann  MWollert  KCMeyer  GP  et al.  Monitoring of bone marrow cell homing into the infarcted human myocardium. Circulation 2005;1112198- 2202
PubMed Link to Article
Aicher  ABrenner  WZuhayra  M  et al.  Assessment of the tissue distribution of transplanted human endothelial progenitor cells by radioactive labeling. Circulation 2003;1072134- 2139
PubMed Link to Article
Assmus  BSchachinger  VTeupe  C  et al.  Transplantation of Progenitor Cells and Regeneration Enhancement in Acute Myocardial Infarction (TOPCARE-AMI). Circulation 2002;1063009- 3017
PubMed Link to Article
Mangi  AANoiseux  NKong  D  et al.  Mesenchymal stem cells modified with Akt prevent remodeling and restore performance of infarcted hearts. Nat Med 2003;91195- 1201
PubMed Link to Article
Bartunek  JDimmeler  SDrexler  H  et al.  The consensus of the task force of the European Society of Cardiology concerning the clinical investigation of the use of autologous adult stem cells for repair of the heart. Eur Heart J 2006;271338- 1340
PubMed Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Flow diagram of eligible studies of bone marrow–derived cells (BMCs) transplantation in patients with acute myocardial infarction and chronic ischemic heart disease. RCTs indicates randomized controlled trials.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Forest plot of unadjusted difference in mean (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients treated with bone marrow–derived cells (BMCs) compared with controls. The figure shows the summary of cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Transplantation with BMCs resulted in a 3.66% (95% CI, 1.93% to 5.40%) increase in mean LVEF. The overall effect was statistically significant in favor of BMC therapy. AMI indicates acute myocardial infarction; CPCs, circulating progenitor cells; OMI, old myocardial infarction; and WMD, weighted mean difference.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.

Forest plot of unadjusted difference in mean (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) change in infarct scar size in patients treated with bone marrow–derived cells (BMCs) compared with controls. The figure shows the summary of cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Transplantation with BMCs resulted in a 5.49% (95% CI, −9.10% to −1.88%) decrease in mean infarct scar size. The overall effect was statistically significant in favor of BMC therapy. WMD indicates weighted mean difference.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 4.

Forest plot of unadjusted difference in mean (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) change in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) in patients treated with bone marrow–derived cells (BMCs) compared with controls. The figure shows the summary of cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Transplantation of BMCs resulted in a 4.80-mL (95% CI, −8.20 to −1.41 mL) decrease in LVESV. The overall effect was statistically significant in favor of BMC therapy. AMI indicates acute myocardial infarction; CPCs, circulating progenitor cells; OMI, old myocardial infarction; and WMD, weighted mean difference.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 5.

Forest plot of unadjusted difference in mean (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) change in left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) in patients treated with bone marrow–derived cells (BMCs) compared with controls. The figure shows the summary of cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). BMC transplantation resulted in a 1.92 mL (95% CI, −6.31 to 2.47) decrease in mean LVEDV. The overall effect was in favor of BMC therapy (not statistically significant). AMI indicates acute myocardial infarction; CPCs, circulating progenitor cells; OMI, old myocardial infarction; and WMD, weighted mean difference.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Characteristics of Studies Included in the Meta-analysis
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Quality Assessment Scale for Randomized Controlled Trials Included in the Meta-analysis
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Modified Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale12 for Cohort Studies Included in the Meta-analysis
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Subgroup Analysis Examining the Impact of Study Design, Underlying Type of Cardiomyopathy, Timing of Transplantation, Number of BMCs Transplanted, and Type of BMCs Transplanted on Outcome Variables

References

Miller  TDChristian  TFHopfenspirger  MRHodge  DOGersh  BJGibbons  RJ Infarct size after acute myocardial infarction measured by quantitative tomographic 99mtc sestamibi imaging predicts subsequent mortality. Circulation 1995;92334- 341
PubMed Link to Article
Myerburg  RJ Sudden cardiac death: exploring the limits of our knowledge. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2001;12369- 381
PubMed Link to Article
Pfeffer  MABraunwald  E Ventricular remodeling after myocardial infarction: experimental observations and clinical implications. Circulation 1990;811161- 1172
PubMed Link to Article
Levy  DKenchaiah  SLarson  MG  et al.  Long-term trends in the incidence of and survival with heart failure. N Engl J Med 2002;3471397- 1402
PubMed Link to Article
Roger  VLWeston  SARedfield  MM  et al.  Trends in heart failure incidence and survival in a community-based population. JAMA 2004;292344- 350
PubMed Link to Article
Dawn  BBolli  R Adult bone marrow–derived cells: regenerative potential, plasticity, and tissue commitment. Basic Res Cardiol 2005;100494- 503
PubMed Link to Article
Dawn  BZuba-Surma  EAbdel-Latif  ATiwari  SBolli  R Cardiac stem cell therapy for myocardial regeneration: a clinical perspective. Minerva Cardioangiol 2005;53549- 564
PubMed
Wollert  KCDrexler  H Clinical applications of stem cells for the heart. Circ Res 2005;96151- 163
PubMed Link to Article
Stroup  DFBerlin  JAMorton  SC  et al. Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) Group, Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA 2000;2832008- 2012
PubMed Link to Article
Moher  DCook  JEastwood  SOlkin  IRennie  DStroup  D Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet 1999;3541896- 1900
PubMed Link to Article
Jüni  PAltman  DEgger  M Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2001;32342- 46
PubMed Link to Article
Wells  GShea  BO'Connell  D  et al.  The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analysis.  Ottawa, Ontario The Ottawa Health Research Institute.http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/nosgen.doc. Accessed March 11, 2006
Higgins  JPThompson  SGDeeks  JJAltman  DG Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysis. BMJ 2003;327557- 560
PubMed Link to Article
Assmus  BHonold  JSchachinger  V  et al.  Transcoronary transplantation of progenitor cells after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2006;3551222- 1232
PubMed Link to Article
Bartunek  JVanderheyden  MVandekerckhove  B  et al.  Intracoronary injection of CD133-positive enriched bone marrow progenitor cells promotes cardiac recovery after recent myocardial infarction: feasibility and safety. Circulation 2005;112 ((suppl)) I178- I183
PubMed
Chen  SLFang  WWYe  F  et al.  Effect on left ventricular function of intracoronary transplantation of autologous bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 2004;9492- 95
PubMed Link to Article
Erbs  SLinke  AAdams  V  et al.  Transplantation of blood-derived progenitor cells after recanalization of chronic coronary artery occlusion: first randomized and placebo-controlled study. Circ Res 2005;97756- 762
PubMed Link to Article
Ge  JLi  YQian  J  et al.  Efficacy of emergent transcatheter transplantation of stem cells for treatment of acute myocardial infarction (TCT-STAMI). [published online ahead of print June 14, 2006] Heart 2006;921764- 1767
PubMed Link to Article
Hendrikx  MHensen  KClijsters  C  et al.  Recovery of regional but not global contractile function by the direct intramyocardial autologous bone marrow transplantation: results from a randomized controlled clinical trial. Circulation 2006;114 ((suppl)) I101- I107
Link to Article
Janssens  SDubois  CBogaert  J  et al.  Autologous bone marrow–derived stem-cell transfer in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2006;367113- 121
PubMed Link to Article
Kang  HLee  HNa  S  et al.  Differential effect of intracoronary infusion of mobilized peripheral blood stem cells by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on left ventricular function and remodeling in patients with acute myocardial infarction versus old myocardial infarction: the MAGIC Cell-3-DES randomized, controlled trial. Circulation 2006;114 ((suppl)) I145- I151
Katritsis  DGSotiropoulou  PAKarvouni  E  et al.  Transcoronary transplantation of autologous mesenchymal stem cells and endothelial progenitors into infarcted human myocardium. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2005;65321- 329
PubMed Link to Article
Lunde  KSolheim  SAakhus  S  et al.  Intracoronary injections of mononuclear bone marrow cells in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2006;3551199- 1209
PubMed Link to Article
Meyer  GPWollert  KCLotz  J  et al.  Intracoronary bone marrow cell transfer after myocardial infarction: eighteen months' follow-up data from the randomized, controlled BOOST (BOne marrOw transfer to enhance ST-elevation infarct regeneration) trial. Circulation 2006;1131287- 1294
PubMed Link to Article
Mocini  DStaibano  MMele  L  et al.  Autologous bone marrow mononuclear cell transplantation in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. Am Heart J 2006;151192- 197
PubMed Link to Article
Perin  ECDohmann  HFBorojevic  R  et al.  Improved exercise capacity and ischemia 6 and 12 months after transendocardial injection of autologous bone marrow mononuclear cells for ischemic cardiomyopathy. Circulation 2004;110 ((suppl 1)) II213- II218
PubMed Link to Article
Ruan  WPan  CHuang  GLi  YGe  JShu  X Assessment of left ventricular segmental function after autologous bone marrow stem cells transplantation in patients with acute myocardial infarction by tissue tracking and strain imaging. Chin Med J (Engl) 2005;1181175- 1181
PubMed
Schächinger  VErbs  SElsasser  A  et al.  Intracoronary bone marrow–derived progenitor cells in acute myocardial in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2006;3551210- 1221
PubMed Link to Article
Strauer  BEBrehm  MZeus  T  et al.  Repair of infarcted myocardium by autologous intracoronary mononuclear bone marrow cell transplantation in humans. Circulation 2002;1061913- 1918
PubMed Link to Article
Strauer  BEBrehm  MZeus  T  et al.  Regeneration of human infarcted heart muscle by intracoronary autologous bone marrow cell transplantation in chronic coronary artery disease: the IACT Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;461651- 1658
PubMed Link to Article
Li  ZQZhang  MJing  YZ  et al.  The clinical study of autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation by intracoronory infusion in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). [published online ahead of print July 5, 2006] Int J Cardiol 2007;11552- 56
PubMed Link to Article
Makino  SFukuda  KMiyoshi  S  et al.  Cardiomyocytes can be generated from marrow stromal cells in vitro. J Clin Invest 1999;103697- 705
PubMed Link to Article
Tomita  SLi  RKWeisel  RD  et al.  Autologous transplantation of bone marrow cells improves damaged heart function. Circulation 1999;100 ((suppl)) II247- II256
PubMed Link to Article
Orlic  DKajstura  JChimenti  S  et al.  Mobilized bone marrow cells repair the infarcted heart, improving function and survival. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001;9810344- 10349
PubMed Link to Article
Toma  CPittenger  MFCahill  KSByrne  BJKessler  PD Human mesenchymal stem cells differentiate to a cardiomyocyte phenotype in the adult murine heart. Circulation 2002;10593- 98
PubMed Link to Article
Kawada  HFujita  JKinjo  K  et al.  Nonhematopoietic mesenchymal stem cells can be mobilized and differentiate into cardiomyocytes after myocardial infarction. Blood 2004;1043581- 3587
PubMed Link to Article
Hattan  NKawaguchi  HAndo  K  et al.  Purified cardiomyocytes from bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells produce stable intracardiac grafts in mice. Cardiovasc Res 2005;65334- 344
PubMed Link to Article
Orlic  DKajstura  JChimenti  S  et al.  Bone marrow cells regenerate infarcted myocardium. Nature 2001;410701- 705
PubMed Link to Article
Urbich  CAicher  AHeeschen  C  et al.  Soluble factors released by endothelial progenitor cells promote migration of endothelial cells and cardiac resident progenitor cells. J Mol Cell Cardiol 2005;39733- 742
PubMed Link to Article
Beltrami  APBarlucchi  LTorella  D  et al.  Adult cardiac stem cells are multipotent and support myocardial regeneration. Cell 2003;114763- 776
PubMed Link to Article
Hofmann  MWollert  KCMeyer  GP  et al.  Monitoring of bone marrow cell homing into the infarcted human myocardium. Circulation 2005;1112198- 2202
PubMed Link to Article
Aicher  ABrenner  WZuhayra  M  et al.  Assessment of the tissue distribution of transplanted human endothelial progenitor cells by radioactive labeling. Circulation 2003;1072134- 2139
PubMed Link to Article
Assmus  BSchachinger  VTeupe  C  et al.  Transplantation of Progenitor Cells and Regeneration Enhancement in Acute Myocardial Infarction (TOPCARE-AMI). Circulation 2002;1063009- 3017
PubMed Link to Article
Mangi  AANoiseux  NKong  D  et al.  Mesenchymal stem cells modified with Akt prevent remodeling and restore performance of infarcted hearts. Nat Med 2003;91195- 1201
PubMed Link to Article
Bartunek  JDimmeler  SDrexler  H  et al.  The consensus of the task force of the European Society of Cardiology concerning the clinical investigation of the use of autologous adult stem cells for repair of the heart. Eur Heart J 2006;271338- 1340
PubMed Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 515

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles