Tissue-source effect on mesenchymal stem cells as living biodrugs for heart failure: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 1.9 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Moaz Safwan, Mariam Safwan Bourgleh, Mohamed Aldoush, Khawaja Husnain Haider
{"title":"Tissue-source effect on mesenchymal stem cells as living biodrugs for heart failure: Systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Moaz Safwan, Mariam Safwan Bourgleh, Mohamed Aldoush, Khawaja Husnain Haider","doi":"10.4330/wjc.v16.i8.469","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), as living biodrugs, have entered advanced phases of clinical assessment for cardiac function restoration in patients with myocardial infarction and heart failure. While MSCs are available from diverse tissue sources, bone-marrow-derived MSCs (BM-MSCs) remain the most well-studied cell type, besides umbilical-cord-derived MSCs (UC-MSCs). The latter offers advantages, including noninvasive availability without ethical considerations.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare the safety and efficacy of BM-MSCs and UC-MSCs in terms of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), 6-min walking distance (6MWD), and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Five databases were systematically searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Thirteen RCTs (693 patients) were included using predefined eligibility criteria. Weighted mean differences and odds ratio (OR) for the changes in the estimated treatment effects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>UC-MSCs significantly improved LVEF <i>vs</i> controls by 5.08% [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.20%-7.95%] at 6 mo and 2.78% (95%CI: 0.86%-4.70%) at 12 mo. However, no significant effect was observed for BM-MSCs <i>vs</i> controls. No significant changes were observed in the 6MWD with either of the two cell types. Also, no differences were observed for MACEs, except rehospitalization rates, which were lower only with BM-MSCs (odds ratio 0.48, 95%CI: 0.24-0.97) <i>vs</i> controls.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>UC-MSCs significantly improved LVEF compared with BM-MSCs. Their advantageous characteristics position them as a promising alternative to MSC-based therapy.</p>","PeriodicalId":23800,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Cardiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11362808/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4330/wjc.v16.i8.469","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), as living biodrugs, have entered advanced phases of clinical assessment for cardiac function restoration in patients with myocardial infarction and heart failure. While MSCs are available from diverse tissue sources, bone-marrow-derived MSCs (BM-MSCs) remain the most well-studied cell type, besides umbilical-cord-derived MSCs (UC-MSCs). The latter offers advantages, including noninvasive availability without ethical considerations.

Aim: To compare the safety and efficacy of BM-MSCs and UC-MSCs in terms of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), 6-min walking distance (6MWD), and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs).

Methods: Five databases were systematically searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Thirteen RCTs (693 patients) were included using predefined eligibility criteria. Weighted mean differences and odds ratio (OR) for the changes in the estimated treatment effects.

Results: UC-MSCs significantly improved LVEF vs controls by 5.08% [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.20%-7.95%] at 6 mo and 2.78% (95%CI: 0.86%-4.70%) at 12 mo. However, no significant effect was observed for BM-MSCs vs controls. No significant changes were observed in the 6MWD with either of the two cell types. Also, no differences were observed for MACEs, except rehospitalization rates, which were lower only with BM-MSCs (odds ratio 0.48, 95%CI: 0.24-0.97) vs controls.

Conclusion: UC-MSCs significantly improved LVEF compared with BM-MSCs. Their advantageous characteristics position them as a promising alternative to MSC-based therapy.

间充质干细胞作为治疗心力衰竭的活生物药物的组织来源效应:系统回顾与荟萃分析。
背景:间充质干细胞(MSCs)作为一种活的生物药物,已进入临床评估的后期阶段,用于恢复心肌梗死和心力衰竭患者的心脏功能。虽然间充质干细胞可从多种组织来源获得,但除脐带间充质干细胞(UC-MSCs)外,骨髓间充质干细胞(BM-MSCs)仍是研究最深入的细胞类型。目的:从左室射血分数(LVEF)、6 分钟步行距离(6MWD)和主要心脏不良事件(MACE)方面比较 BM 间充质干细胞和 UC 间充质干细胞的安全性和有效性:系统检索了五个数据库,以确定随机对照试验(RCT)。采用预定义的资格标准,纳入了 13 项 RCT(693 名患者)。结果显示,UC-间充质干细胞能显著改善 LV 舒张功能:UC-间充质干细胞与对照组相比,6个月时LVEF明显改善了5.08% [95%置信区间(CI):2.20%-7.95%],12个月时改善了2.78% (95%CI:0.86%-4.70%)。两种细胞类型的 6MWD 均未观察到明显变化。此外,除再住院率外,未观察到其他MACEs差异,只有BM-间充质干细胞(几率比0.48,95%CI:0.24-0.97)与对照组相比,再住院率较低:结论:与BM-间充质干细胞相比,UC-间充质干细胞能明显改善LVEF。结论:UC-间充质干细胞与 BM-间充质干细胞相比能明显改善 LVEF,其优势特性使其有望成为间充质干细胞疗法的替代品。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
World Journal of Cardiology
World Journal of Cardiology CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.30%
发文量
54
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信