Key result
Stem cell therapy proves safe post-MI but yields only modest functional recovery.
While first-generation stem cell therapies for heart disease have proven safe, their efficacy for myocardial functional recovery remains modest, highlighting the need for second-generation approaches.
Modest efficacy despite established safety cautions against routine use; leaves open optimized second-generation approaches for functional recovery.
With increasing focus on the advance towards curative solutions, it is hard not to be excited by the potential of stem cell-based therapy. Application of the stem cell paradigm to cardiovascular medicine has fostered the evolution of novel approaches aimed at reversing injury caused by ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. The feasibility and safety of stem cell use has been established in over 3,000 patients with either recent myocardial infarction or chronic organ failure. Nonetheless, the efficacy of stem cell therapy continues to remain in question. Initial clinical trials have focused on evaluation of multiple adult stem cell phenotypes in their unaltered, naíve state as a "first generation" resource for repair. Though significant strides in perfecting delivery of these biologics to the diseased heart have been achieved, the benefits with regard to myocardial functional recovery have been modest at best. One approach towards optimizing outcome may lie upon preemptive guidance of stem cells down the pathway of myocyte regeneration. As seen with pharmacotherapeutics in the last century, successful translation of "second generation" biotherapeutics in the 21(st) century will require close integration of a community of practice and science to ensure broad application of this emerging technology in the treatment of heart disease.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Behfar et al. (2010) conducted a review in Recent myocardial infarction or chronic organ failure (n=3,000). Stem cell therapy was evaluated.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: