4.5 Article

Controlled trials in hepatitis B virus-related decompensate liver cirrhosis: peripheral blood monocyte transplant versus granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor mobilization therapy

期刊

CYTOTHERAPY
卷 10, 期 4, 页码 390-396

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14653240802129901

关键词

decompensated liver cirrhosis; granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor; peripheral blood monocyte transplant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Liver cirrhosis represents the end stage of chronic liver injury. Currently, liver transplantation provides the only definite cure but it is beset with many problems, including lack of donors and risk of rejection. Stem cell therapy is very attractive in this setting because it has the potential to help tissue regeneration. In this study, we aimed to investigate the therapeutic effect of peripheral blood monocyte cell (PBMC) transplantation in decompensated liver cirrhosis. Methods A total of 40 subjects (31 men and nine females, age range 21-71 years) was recruited to two groups. Group 1 received granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) mobilization, PBMC collection by leukapheresis and PBMC transplant therapy. Group 2 received G-CSF mobilization for 4 days. At baseline and 6 months after treatment, liver function of the two groups was monitored by blood examination and ultrasonagraphy. Results Both groups gained significant improvement in liver synthetic function, such as serum albumin and prothrombin time, from baseline to 6 months after treatment (P < 0.01). However, there was no significant difference in alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase and total bilirubin in both groups (P > 0.05). Compared with group 2, a significantly improved liver function was observed in group 1, including elevated serum albumin level and a decreased CTP score (P < 0.05). No major adverse effects were noted. Discussion Autologous PBMC transplantation could be considered as a novel and alternative treatment for patients with decompensated liver cirrhosis.

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

4.5
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