Evidence Hub

The Impact of Cell Therapy on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Refractory Angina

Jones DA, Weeraman D, Colicchia M, Hussain MA, Veerapen D, Andiapen M, Rathod KS, Baumbach A et al.

Circulation research, 2019

526 participants

Abstract

RATIONALE: Cell-based therapies are a novel potential treatment for refractory angina and have been found to improve markers of angina. However, the effects on mortality and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) have not been definitively investigated.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of stem cell treatment compared with optimal medical treatment for refractory angina by conducting an updated meta-analysis, looking at clinical outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. A comprehensive search was performed of PubMed, EMBASE (Excerpta Medica database), Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.gov , Google Scholar databases of randomized controlled trials, and scientific session abstracts. Studies were deemed eligible if they met the following criteria: (1) full-length publications in peer-reviewed journals; (2) evaluated cell therapy use in patients with no further revascularisation options while on optimal medical treatment; (3) patients had ongoing angina, Canadian Cardiovascular Society class II-IV; and (4) included a placebo/control arm. We calculated risk ratios for all-cause mortality, combined MACE events. We assessed heterogeneity using χ2 and I2 tests. We identified 1191 citations with 8 randomized controlled trials meeting inclusion criteria involving 526 patients. Outcomes pooled were MACE, mortality, and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 526 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free