4.7 Article

A comparison between percutaneous and surgical transplantation of autologous skeletal myoblasts in a swine model of chronic myocardial infarction

Journal

CARDIOVASCULAR RESEARCH
Volume 71, Issue 4, Pages 744-753

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cardiores.2006.06.018

Keywords

skeletal myoblasts; myocardial infarction; vasculogenesis; fibrosis; cell therapy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Our aim was to compare the efficacy of surgical versus percutaneous administration of skeletal myoblasts (SkM) in a swine model of chronic myocardial infarction and to determine the mechanism(s) involved in their beneficial effect. Methods: Two months after induction of myocardial infarction (MI), Goettingen miniature pigs underwent autologous SkM transplant either by direct surgical injection (n=6) or percutancous access and intramyocardial delivery under fluoroscopic and echocardiographic guidance (n = 6). Control animals received media alone (n = 4). Functional analysis was performed by 2D echocardiography. Myoblast engraftment, in vivo cell differentiation, vessel formation, fibrosis, and the ratio between collagen type I/III deposition were analyzed in the infarct (IA) and non-infarct area (NIA) by immunohistochemistry. Results: Animals received a median of 407.55 +/- 115 x 10(6) BrdU-Iabeled autologous SkM. Myoblast transplant was associated with a statistically significant increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (p < 0.01), increased vasculogenesis and decreased fibrosis (p < 0.05), and reduced collagen type I/III ratio in the IA and NIA areas as compared with control animals. No differences were found between groups receiving SkM by percutaneous or surgical access. Conclusions: Our results indicate that increased vasculogenesis and changes in matrix remodeling with decreased fibrosis are associated with the beneficial effect of SkM transplant in chronic MI. The equivalent benefit observed from surgical and percutaneous delivery has important clinical implications. (c) 2006 European Society of Cardiology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available