Fisher Sheila A, Doree Carolyn, Mathur Anthony, Taggart David P, Martin-Rendon Enca
Systematic Review Initiative, NHS Blood and Transplant, Level 2, John Radcliffe Hospital, Headington, Oxford, Oxon, UK, OX3 9BQ.
Department of Clinical Pharmacology, William Harvey Research Institute, Charterhouse Square, London, UK, EC1M 6BQ.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 24;12(12):CD007888. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007888.pub3.
A promising approach to the treatment of chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure is the use of stem cells. The last decade has seen a plethora of randomised controlled trials developed worldwide, which have generated conflicting results.
The critical evaluation of clinical evidence on the safety and efficacy of autologous adult bone marrow-derived stem/progenitor cells as a treatment for chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure.
We searched CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, and four ongoing trial databases for relevant trials up to 14 December 2015.
Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials comparing autologous adult stem/progenitor cells with no cells in people with chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure. We included co-interventions, such as primary angioplasty, surgery, or administration of stem cell mobilising agents, when administered to treatment and control arms equally.
Two review authors independently screened all references for eligibility, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. We undertook a quantitative evaluation of data using random-effects meta-analyses. We evaluated heterogeneity using the I statistic and explored substantial heterogeneity (I greater than 50%) through subgroup analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADEprofiler (GRADEpro), excluding studies with a high or unclear risk of selection bias. We focused our summary of findings on long-term follow-up of mortality, morbidity outcomes, and left ventricular ejection fraction measured by magnetic resonance imaging.
We included 38 randomised controlled trials involving 1907 participants (1114 cell therapy, 793 controls) in this review update. Twenty-three trials were at high or unclear risk of selection bias. Other sources of potential bias included lack of blinding of participants (12 trials) and full or partial commercial sponsorship (13 trials).Cell therapy reduced the incidence of long-term mortality (≥ 12 months) (risk ratio (RR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 0.87; participants = 491; studies = 9; I = 0%; low-quality evidence). Periprocedural adverse events associated with the mapping or cell/placebo injection procedure were infrequent. Cell therapy was also associated with a long-term reduction in the incidence of non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.97; participants = 345; studies = 5; I = 0%; low-quality evidence) and incidence of arrhythmias (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.99; participants = 82; studies = 1; low-quality evidence). However, we found no evidence that cell therapy affects the risk of rehospitalisation for heart failure (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.09; participants = 375; studies = 6; I = 0%; low-quality evidence) or composite incidence of mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and/or rehospitalisation for heart failure (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.08; participants = 141; studies = 3; I = 0%; low-quality evidence), or long-term left ventricular ejection fraction when measured by magnetic resonance imaging (mean difference -1.60, 95% CI -8.70 to 5.50; participants = 25; studies = 1; low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis found low-quality evidence that treatment with bone marrow-derived stem/progenitor cells reduces mortality and improves left ventricular ejection fraction over short- and long-term follow-up and may reduce the incidence of non-fatal myocardial infarction and improve New York Heart Association (NYHA) Functional Classification in people with chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure. These findings should be interpreted with caution, as event rates were generally low, leading to a lack of precision.
使用干细胞是治疗慢性缺血性心脏病和充血性心力衰竭的一种有前景的方法。在过去十年中,全球开展了大量随机对照试验,但结果相互矛盾。
对自体成人骨髓来源的干/祖细胞治疗慢性缺血性心脏病和充血性心力衰竭的安全性和有效性的临床证据进行批判性评价。
我们检索了Cochrane图书馆中的CENTRAL、MEDLINE、Embase、CINAHL、LILACS以及四个正在进行的试验数据库,以查找截至2015年12月14日的相关试验。
符合条件的研究为随机对照试验,比较自体成人干/祖细胞与未接受细胞治疗的慢性缺血性心脏病和充血性心力衰竭患者。当干细胞动员剂等联合干预措施在治疗组和对照组中同等应用时,我们将其纳入。
两位综述作者独立筛选所有参考文献以确定其是否符合条件,评估试验质量并提取数据。我们使用随机效应荟萃分析对数据进行定量评估。我们使用I²统计量评估异质性,并通过亚组分析探讨实质性异质性(I²大于50%)。我们使用GRADE方法评估证据质量。我们使用GRADEprofiler(GRADEpro)创建了一个“结果总结”表,排除了选择偏倚风险高或不明确的研究。我们的结果总结重点关注死亡率、发病率结局的长期随访以及通过磁共振成像测量的左心室射血分数。
在本次综述更新中,我们纳入了38项随机对照试验,涉及1907名参与者(1114名接受细胞治疗,793名作为对照)。23项试验存在选择偏倚风险高或不明确的情况。其他潜在偏倚来源包括参与者未设盲(12项试验)以及完全或部分商业赞助(13项试验)。细胞治疗降低了长期死亡率(≥12个月)的发生率(风险比(RR)0.42,95%置信区间(CI)0.21至0.87;参与者 = 491;研究 = 9;I² = 0%;低质量证据)。与标测或细胞/安慰剂注射程序相关的围手术期不良事件并不常见。细胞治疗还与非致命性心肌梗死发生率的长期降低相关(RR 0.38,95% CI 0.15至0.97;参与者 = 345;研究 = 5;I² = 0%;低质量证据)以及心律失常发生率相关(RR 0.42,95% CI 0.18至0.99;参与者 = 82;研究 = 1;低质量证据)。然而,我们没有发现证据表明细胞治疗会影响因心力衰竭再次住院治疗的风险(RR 0.63,95% CI 0.36至1.09;参与者 = 375;研究 = 6;I² = 0%;低质量证据)或死亡率、非致命性心肌梗死和/或因心力衰竭再次住院治疗的综合发生率(RR 0.64,95% CI 0.38至1.08;参与者 = 141;研究 = 3;I² = 0%;低质量证据),以及通过磁共振成像测量的长期左心室射血分数(平均差 -1.60,95% CI -8.70至5.50;参与者 = 25;研究 = 1;低质量证据)。
本系统综述和荟萃分析发现低质量证据表明,骨髓来源的干/祖细胞治疗在短期和长期随访中可降低死亡率并改善左心室射血分数,可能降低非致命性心肌梗死的发生率,并改善慢性缺血性心脏病和充血性心力衰竭患者的纽约心脏协会(NYHA)功能分级。由于事件发生率通常较低,导致缺乏精确性,这些发现应谨慎解读。