Suppr超能文献

通过粒细胞集落刺激因子(G-CSF)进行冠状动脉内输注动员的外周血干细胞,在改善心脏功能和重塑方面优于单纯使用G-CSF进行动员:粒细胞集落刺激因子和冠状动脉内干细胞输注心肌梗死心肌再生和血管生成(MAGIC Cell)1试验的2年随访结果。

Intracoronary infusion of the mobilized peripheral blood stem cell by G-CSF is better than mobilization alone by G-CSF for improvement of cardiac function and remodeling: 2-year follow-up results of the Myocardial Regeneration and Angiogenesis in Myocardial Infarction with G-CSF and Intra-Coronary Stem Cell Infusion (MAGIC Cell) 1 trial.

作者信息

Kang Hyun-Jae, Kim Hyo-Soo, Koo Bon-Kwon, Kim Yong-Jin, Lee DongSoo, Sohn Dae-Won, Oh Byung-Hee, Park Young-Bae

机构信息

National Research Laboratory for Cardiovascular Stem Cell, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

出版信息

Am Heart J. 2007 Feb;153(2):237.e1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2006.11.004.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The results of stem cell therapy trials in myocardial infarction using granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) are inconsistent among trials, and the long-term outcome of G-CSF-based stem cell therapy remains unknown. We reported 2 years of follow-up results of 2 different strategies of G-CSF-based stem cell therapy.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We compared outcomes of intracoronary infusion of the mobilized peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) with G-CSF, mobilization alone with G-CSF, and the control PCI alone in patients with myocardial infarction. At 2 years of follow-up evaluation, cell infusion improved left ventricular systolic function and remodeling compared to baseline, but G-CSF alone did not. Cell infusion group showed better improvements of left ventricular ejection fraction (+6.2% +/- 3.6% vs -4.3% +/- 10.1%, P = .004) and end-systolic volume (-15.7 +/- 13.0 vs +0.3 +/- 16.7 mL, P = .075) compared to G-CSF alone at 6 months of follow-up, and these trends were maintained till 2 years of follow-up (P = .094 and .046, respectively). Improvements in cell infusion group are not significantly better than that of control group because of small sample size. Patients who received G-CSF administration showed a tendency of modest increase of binary restenosis (50% vs 30%, P > .05) and a greater late loss of minimal luminal diameter (P > .05) at 6 months of follow-up, compared to the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Till 2 years follow-up, intracoronary cell infusion with mobilized PBSCs by G-CSF is better than G-CSF alone but not significantly better than control. Efficacy and safety of intracoronary infusion of mobilized PBSCs by G-CSF should be evaluated in a large randomized controlled trial.

摘要

背景

使用粒细胞集落刺激因子(G-CSF)进行心肌梗死干细胞治疗试验的结果在各试验中并不一致,基于G-CSF的干细胞治疗的长期结果仍不明确。我们报告了基于G-CSF的干细胞治疗两种不同策略的2年随访结果。

方法与结果

我们比较了心肌梗死患者冠状动脉内输注经G-CSF动员的外周血干细胞(PBSCs)、单纯G-CSF动员以及单纯对照经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的结果。在2年的随访评估中,与基线相比,细胞输注改善了左心室收缩功能和重塑,但单纯G-CSF治疗未改善。在随访6个月时,细胞输注组左心室射血分数的改善优于单纯G-CSF组(+6.2%±3.6%对-4.3%±10.1%,P = 0.004),收缩末期容积也有改善(-15.7±13.0对+0.3±16.7 mL,P = 0.075),这些趋势一直维持到2年随访(分别为P = 0.094和0.046)。由于样本量小,细胞输注组的改善并不显著优于对照组。与对照组相比,接受G-CSF治疗的患者在随访6个月时二元再狭窄有适度增加的趋势(50%对30%,P>0.05),最小管腔直径的晚期丢失更大(P>0.05)。

结论

到2年随访时,经G-CSF动员的PBSCs冠状动脉内细胞输注优于单纯G-CSF,但并不显著优于对照组。应在大型随机对照试验中评估经G-CSF动员的PBSCs冠状动脉内输注的疗效和安全性。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验