Kang Hyun-Jae, Lee Hae-Young, Na Sang-Hoon, Chang Sung-A, Park Kyung-Woo, Kim Hyung-Kwan, Kim Song-Yi, Chang Ho-Joon, Lee Whal, Kang Won Jun, Koo Bon-Kwon, Kim Yong-Jin, Lee Dong Soo, Sohn Dae-Won, Han Kyou-Sup, Oh Byung-Hee, Park Young-Bae, Kim Hyo-Soo
Cardiovascular Laboratory, Clinical Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital, 28 Yongon-dong, Chongno-gu, Seoul 110-744, Republic of Korea.
Circulation. 2006 Jul 4;114(1 Suppl):I145-51. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.001107.
The efficacy of intracoronary infusion of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) mobilized peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) has not been compared between patients with acute (AMI) versus old myocardial infarction (OMI). In addition, the potential risk of restenosis associated with G-CSF-based stem cell therapy has not been evaluated in the setting of drug eluting stent (DES) implantation.
We randomly allocated 96 patients with myocardial infarction who underwent coronary revascularization with DES for the culprit lesion into 4 groups. Eighty-two patients completed 6-month follow-up; AMI cell infusion (n=25), AMI control (n=25), OMI cell infusion (n=16), and OMI control group (n=16). In cell infusion groups, PBSCs were mobilized by G-CSF for 3 days and delivered to infarcted myocardium via intracoronary infusion. The AMI cell infusion group showed a significant additive improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and remodeling compared with controls (change of LVEF: +5.1+/-9.1% versus -0.2+/-8.6%, P<0.05; change of end-systolic volume: -5.4+/-17.0 mL versus 6.5+/-21.9 mL, P<0.05). In OMI patients, however, there was no significant change of LVEF and ventricular remodeling in spite of significant improvement of coronary flow reserve after cell infusion. G-CSF-based cell therapy did not aggravate neointimal growth with DES implantation.
Intracoronary infusion of mobilized PBSCs with G-CSF improves LVEF and remodeling in patients with AMI but is less definite in patients with OMI. G-CSF-based stem cell therapy with DES implantation is both feasible and safe, eliminating any potential for restenosis.
急性心肌梗死(AMI)患者与陈旧性心肌梗死(OMI)患者之间,冠状动脉内输注粒细胞集落刺激因子(G-CSF)动员的外周血干细胞(PBSC)的疗效尚未进行比较。此外,在药物洗脱支架(DES)植入的情况下,基于G-CSF的干细胞治疗相关的再狭窄潜在风险尚未得到评估。
我们将96例因罪犯病变接受DES冠状动脉血运重建的心肌梗死患者随机分为4组。82例患者完成了6个月的随访;AMI细胞输注组(n = 25)、AMI对照组(n = 25)、OMI细胞输注组(n = 16)和OMI对照组(n = 16)。在细胞输注组中,PBSC通过G-CSF动员3天,并通过冠状动脉内输注输送至梗死心肌。与对照组相比,AMI细胞输注组左心室射血分数(LVEF)和重构有显著的附加改善(LVEF变化:+5.1±9.1%对-0.2±8.6%,P<0.05;收缩末期容积变化:-5.4±17.0 mL对6.5±21.9 mL,P<0.05)。然而,在OMI患者中,尽管细胞输注后冠状动脉血流储备有显著改善,但LVEF和心室重构无显著变化。基于G-CSF的细胞治疗并未加重DES植入后的内膜增生。
冠状动脉内输注G-CSF动员的PBSC可改善AMI患者的LVEF和重构,但对OMI患者的效果不太明确。DES植入联合基于G-CSF的干细胞治疗既可行又安全,消除了再狭窄的任何可能性。