Peruzzi Mariangela, De Falco Elena, Abbate Antonio, Biondi-Zoccai Giuseppe, Chimenti Isotta, Lotrionte Marzia, Benedetto Umberto, Delewi Ronak, Marullo Antonino G M, Frati Giacomo
Department of Medico-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Corso della Repubblica 79, 04100 Latina, Italy.
VCU Pauley Heart Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, 821 West Franklin Street, Richmond, VA 23284, USA.
Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:613782. doi: 10.1155/2015/613782. Epub 2015 Jun 15.
To provide a comprehensive appraisal of the evidence from secondary research on cardiac regenerative therapy.
Overview of systematic reviews of controlled clinical trials concerning stem cell administration or mobilization in patients with cardiovascular disease.
After a systematic database search, we short-listed 41 reviews (660 patients). Twenty-two (54%) reviews focused on acute myocardial infarction (AMI), 19 (46%) on chronic ischemic heart disease (IHD) or heart failure (HF), 29 (71%) on bone marrow-derived stem-cells (BMSC), and 36 (88%) to randomized trials only. Substantial variability among reviews was found for validity (AMSTAR score: median 9 [minimum 3]; 1st quartile 9; 3rd quartile 10; maximum 11), effect estimates (change in ejection fraction from baseline to follow-up: 3.47% [0.02%; 2.90%; 4.22%; 6.11%]), and citations (Web of Science yearly citations: 4.1 [0; 2.2; 6.5; 68.9]). No significant association was found between these three features. However, reviews focusing on BMSC therapy had higher validity scores (P = 0.008) and showed more pronounced effect estimates (P = 0.002). Higher citations were associated with journal impact factor (P = 0.007), corresponding author from North America/Europe (P = 0.022), and inclusion of nonrandomized trials (P = 0.046).
Substantial heterogeneity is apparent among these reviews in terms of quality and effect estimates.
对心脏再生治疗的二次研究证据进行全面评估。
对关于心血管疾病患者干细胞给药或动员的对照临床试验的系统评价进行概述。
经过系统的数据库检索,我们筛选出41篇综述(660例患者)。22篇(54%)综述聚焦于急性心肌梗死(AMI),19篇(46%)聚焦于慢性缺血性心脏病(IHD)或心力衰竭(HF),29篇(71%)聚焦于骨髓源性干细胞(BMSC),36篇(88%)仅纳入随机试验。在综述之间发现了有效性(AMSTAR评分:中位数9[最小值3];第一四分位数9;第三四分位数10;最大值11)、效应估计值(从基线到随访射血分数的变化:3.47%[0.02%;2.90%;4.22%;6.11%])和引用次数(科学引文索引年度引用次数:4.1[0;2.2;6.5;68.9])方面存在很大差异。这三个特征之间未发现显著关联。然而,聚焦于BMSC治疗的综述具有更高的有效性评分(P = 0.008),并且显示出更明显的效应估计值(P = 0.002)。较高的引用次数与期刊影响因子(P = 0.007)、来自北美/欧洲的通讯作者(P = 0.022)以及纳入非随机试验(P = 0.046)相关。
这些综述在质量和效应估计方面存在明显的异质性。