4.6 Article

REVIVE Trial: Retrograde Delivery of Autologous Bone Marrow in Patients With Heart Failure

期刊

STEM CELLS TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE
卷 4, 期 9, 页码 1021-1027

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.5966/sctm.2015-0070

关键词

Heart failure; Cell transplantation; Coronary sinus; Retrograde approach

资金

  1. Harvest Technologies, Plymouth, MA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cell therapy is an evolving option for patients with end-stage heart failure and ongoing symptoms despite optimal medical therapy. Our goal was to evaluate retrograde bone marrow cell delivery in patients with either ischemic heart failure (IHF) or nonischemic heart failure (NIHF). This was a prospective randomized, multicenter, open-label study of the safety and feasibility of bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) infused retrograde into the coronary sinus. Sixty patients were stratified by IHF and NIHF and randomized to receive either BMAC infusion or control (standard heart failure care) in a 4:1 ratio. Accordingly, 24 subjects were randomized to the ischemic BMAC group and 6 to the ischemic control group. Similarly, 24 subjects were randomized to the nonischemic BMAC group and 6 to the nonischemic control group. All 60 patients were successfully enrolled in the study. The treatment groups received BMAC infusion without complications. The left ventricular ejection fraction in the patients receiving BMAC demonstrated significant improvement compared with baseline, from 25.1% at screening to 31.1% at 12 months (p =.007) in the NIHF group and from 26.3% to 31.1% in the IHF group (p =.035). The end-systolic diameter decreased significantly in the nonischemic BMAC group from 55.6 to 50.9 mm (p =.020). Retrograde BMAC delivery is safe. All patients receiving BMAC experienced improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction, but only those with NIHF showed improvements in left ventricular endsystolic diameter and B-type natriuretic peptide. These results provide the basis for a larger clinical trial in HF patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据