Lower retention after retrograde coronary venous infusion compared with intracoronary infusion of mesenchymal stromal cells in the infarcted porcine myocardium.
Wouter A Gathier, Mira van der Naald, Bas R van Klarenbosch, Anton E Tuinenburg, John Lm Bemelmans, Klaus Neef, Joost Pg Sluijter, Frebus J van Slochteren, Pieter A Doevendans, Steven Aj Chamuleau
{"title":"Lower retention after retrograde coronary venous infusion compared with intracoronary infusion of mesenchymal stromal cells in the infarcted porcine myocardium.","authors":"Wouter A Gathier, Mira van der Naald, Bas R van Klarenbosch, Anton E Tuinenburg, John Lm Bemelmans, Klaus Neef, Joost Pg Sluijter, Frebus J van Slochteren, Pieter A Doevendans, Steven Aj Chamuleau","doi":"10.1136/bmjos-2018-000006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p></p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Commonly used strategies for cell delivery to the heart are intramyocardial injection and intracoronary (IC) infusion, both having their advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, alternative strategies, such as retrograde coronary venous infusion (RCVI), are explored. The aim of this confirmatory study was to compare cardiac cell retention between RCVI and IC infusion. As a secondary end point, the procedural safety of RCVI is assessed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Four weeks after myocardial infarction, 12 pigs were randomised to receive mesenchymal stromal cells, labelled with Indium-111, via RCVI (n=6) or IC infusion (n=6). Four hours after cell administration, nuclear imaging was performed to determine the number of cells retained in the heart both in vivo and ex vivo. Procedure-related safety measures were reported.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Cardiac cell retention is significantly lower after RCVI compared with IC infusion (in vivo: RCVI: median 2.89% vs IC: median 13.74%, p=0.002, ex vivo: RCVI: median 2.55% vs IC: median 39.40%, p=0.002). RCVI led to development of pericardial fluid and haematomas on the frontal wall of the heart in three cases. Coronary venous dissection after RCVI was seen in three pigs, of which one also developed pericardial fluid and a haematoma. IC infusion led to no flow in one pig.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>RCVI is significantly less efficient in delivering cells to the heart compared with IC infusion. RCVI led to more procedure-related safety issues than IC infusion, with multiple cases of venous dissection and development of haematomas and pericardial fluid collections.</p>","PeriodicalId":9212,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Science","volume":"3 1","pages":"e000006"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8647578/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjos-2018-000006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Commonly used strategies for cell delivery to the heart are intramyocardial injection and intracoronary (IC) infusion, both having their advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, alternative strategies, such as retrograde coronary venous infusion (RCVI), are explored. The aim of this confirmatory study was to compare cardiac cell retention between RCVI and IC infusion. As a secondary end point, the procedural safety of RCVI is assessed.
Methods: Four weeks after myocardial infarction, 12 pigs were randomised to receive mesenchymal stromal cells, labelled with Indium-111, via RCVI (n=6) or IC infusion (n=6). Four hours after cell administration, nuclear imaging was performed to determine the number of cells retained in the heart both in vivo and ex vivo. Procedure-related safety measures were reported.
Results: Cardiac cell retention is significantly lower after RCVI compared with IC infusion (in vivo: RCVI: median 2.89% vs IC: median 13.74%, p=0.002, ex vivo: RCVI: median 2.55% vs IC: median 39.40%, p=0.002). RCVI led to development of pericardial fluid and haematomas on the frontal wall of the heart in three cases. Coronary venous dissection after RCVI was seen in three pigs, of which one also developed pericardial fluid and a haematoma. IC infusion led to no flow in one pig.
Conclusion: RCVI is significantly less efficient in delivering cells to the heart compared with IC infusion. RCVI led to more procedure-related safety issues than IC infusion, with multiple cases of venous dissection and development of haematomas and pericardial fluid collections.
背景:向心脏输送细胞的常用策略是心肌内注射和冠状动脉内(IC)输注,两者各有利弊。因此,人们开始探索其他策略,如逆行冠状静脉输注(RCVI)。这项确证研究的目的是比较 RCVI 和 IC 输注的心脏细胞保留率。作为次要终点,对 RCVI 的程序安全性进行评估:心肌梗死四周后,12 头猪被随机分配,通过 RCVI(6 头)或 IC 输注(6 头)接受用铟-111 标记的间充质基质细胞。细胞给药四小时后,进行核成像以确定体内和体外保留在心脏中的细胞数量。结果:结果:与 IC 输注相比,RCVI 后心脏细胞保留率明显较低(体内:RCVI:中位数 2.89% vs IC:中位数 13.74%,p=0.002;体外:RCVI:中位数 2.55% vs IC:中位数 39.40%,p=0.002)。三例 RCVI 导致心包积液和心脏前壁血肿。三头猪在 RCVI 后出现冠状静脉夹层,其中一头还出现心包积液和血肿。IC输注导致一头猪没有血流:结论:与 IC 输注相比,RCVI 向心脏输送细胞的效率明显较低。结论:与 IC 输注相比,RCVI 在向心脏输送细胞方面的效率明显较低。与 IC 输注相比,RCVI 引发了更多与手术相关的安全问题,其中包括多例静脉剥离、血肿和心包积液。