The future of cell therapy for acute myocardial infarction.

Noel M Caplice
{"title":"The future of cell therapy for acute myocardial infarction.","authors":"Noel M Caplice","doi":"10.1038/ncpcardio0432","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Initial clinical trials of bone-marrow-derived mononuclear cells after acute myocardial infarction have shown improvement in a number of cardiac indices, including left ventricular systolic function, infarct size, stroke volume, and coronary blood flow. Functional improvements observed in cell therapy studies have been modest, with augmentation of left ventricular function in the range of 6-8%. Nevertheless, these studies have generated considerable debate on a number of issues, including the efficacy of specific cell populations, logistics of cell harvesting and isolation, and, most importantly, the mechanism of cell therapy benefit. With the field on the threshold of large-scale, randomized, controlled clinical trials, additional questions, such as the following, must be asked. Can cell therapy procedures be simplified? Can therapeutic effects be obtained earlier after myocardial infarction? Is cell harvesting a necessary component of cell therapy or can endogenous cells be mobilized sufficiently to obviate the need for processing exogenous cells? In an era when interventional devices are increasingly used in therapeutic approaches to acute myocardial infarction, can current cell therapy practice be integrated with interventional approaches to acute revascularization? Emerging concepts that may address some of these questions include whether paracrine factors released by progenitor or stem cells can be as efficacious as bone-marrow- or blood-derived cells, whether novel progenitor populations mobilized locally in the vessel wall or the heart can participate in repair or regeneration, and whether cell therapy strategies for acute myocardial infarction will evolve to include interventional technologies in combination with paracrine or mobilization factors.</p>","PeriodicalId":51263,"journal":{"name":"Nature Clinical Practice. Cardiovascular Medicine","volume":"3 Suppl 1 ","pages":"S129-32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1038/ncpcardio0432","citationCount":"22","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature Clinical Practice. Cardiovascular Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpcardio0432","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

Abstract

Initial clinical trials of bone-marrow-derived mononuclear cells after acute myocardial infarction have shown improvement in a number of cardiac indices, including left ventricular systolic function, infarct size, stroke volume, and coronary blood flow. Functional improvements observed in cell therapy studies have been modest, with augmentation of left ventricular function in the range of 6-8%. Nevertheless, these studies have generated considerable debate on a number of issues, including the efficacy of specific cell populations, logistics of cell harvesting and isolation, and, most importantly, the mechanism of cell therapy benefit. With the field on the threshold of large-scale, randomized, controlled clinical trials, additional questions, such as the following, must be asked. Can cell therapy procedures be simplified? Can therapeutic effects be obtained earlier after myocardial infarction? Is cell harvesting a necessary component of cell therapy or can endogenous cells be mobilized sufficiently to obviate the need for processing exogenous cells? In an era when interventional devices are increasingly used in therapeutic approaches to acute myocardial infarction, can current cell therapy practice be integrated with interventional approaches to acute revascularization? Emerging concepts that may address some of these questions include whether paracrine factors released by progenitor or stem cells can be as efficacious as bone-marrow- or blood-derived cells, whether novel progenitor populations mobilized locally in the vessel wall or the heart can participate in repair or regeneration, and whether cell therapy strategies for acute myocardial infarction will evolve to include interventional technologies in combination with paracrine or mobilization factors.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
急性心肌梗死细胞治疗的未来。
急性心肌梗死后骨髓源性单核细胞的初步临床试验显示,许多心脏指标得到改善,包括左心室收缩功能、梗死面积、卒中容量和冠状动脉血流量。在细胞治疗研究中观察到的功能改善是适度的,左心室功能的增强在6-8%的范围内。然而,这些研究在许多问题上引起了相当大的争论,包括特定细胞群的功效,细胞收获和分离的后勤,以及最重要的细胞治疗益处的机制。随着该领域进入大规模、随机、对照临床试验的门槛,必须提出以下附加问题。细胞治疗程序可以简化吗?心肌梗死后能更早获得治疗效果吗?细胞收集是细胞治疗的必要组成部分,还是内源性细胞可以充分动员以避免处理外源性细胞的需要?在介入设备越来越多地应用于急性心肌梗死治疗的时代,当前的细胞治疗实践能否与介入治疗急性血运重建术相结合?可能解决这些问题的新兴概念包括祖细胞或干细胞释放的旁分泌因子是否与骨髓或血源性细胞一样有效,在血管壁或心脏局部动员的新祖细胞群是否可以参与修复或再生,以及急性心肌梗死的细胞治疗策略是否将发展到包括与旁分泌因子或动员因子结合的介入技术。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Sequence and Phylogenetic Analysis of the Untranslated Promoter Regions for HLA Class I Genes. Prevalence of allergen sensitization in 1000 adults in Saskatchewan. Tinea pedis and onychomycosis frequency in diabetes mellitus patients and diabetic foot ulcers. A cross sectional - observational study. Imaging left ventricular remodeling: targeting the neurohumoral axis. Targeted imaging of myocardial damage.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1