↓ Skip to main content

Safety and Efficacy of the Intravenous Infusion of Umbilical Cord Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Patients With Heart Failure

Overview of attention for article published in Circulation Research, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#16 of 6,362)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
98 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 Mendeley
Title
Safety and Efficacy of the Intravenous Infusion of Umbilical Cord Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Patients With Heart Failure
Published in
Circulation Research, October 2017
DOI 10.1161/circresaha.117.310712
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jorge Bartolucci, Fernando J. Verdugo, Paz L. González, Ricardo E. Larrea, Ema Abarzua, Carlos Goset, Pamela Rojo, Ivan Palma, Ruben Lamich, Pablo A. Pedreros, Gloria Valdivia, Valentina M. Lopez, Carolina Nazzal, Francisca Alcayaga-Miranda, Jimena Cuenca, Matthew J. Brobeck, Amit N. Patel, Fernando E. Figueroa, Maroun Khoury

Abstract

Rationale: Umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stem cells (UC-MSC) are easily accessible and expanded in vitro, possess distinct properties, and improve myocardial remodeling and function in experimental models of cardiovascular disease. While bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSCs) have been previously assessed for their therapeutic potential in individuals with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), no clinical trial has evaluated UC-MSCs in these patients. Objective: Evaluate the safety and efficacy of the infusion of UC-MSC in patients with chronic stable HFrEF. Methods and Results: HFrEF patients under optimal medical treatment were randomized to intravenous infusion of allogenic UC-MSCs (Cellistem, Cells for Cells S.A., Santiago, Chile) (1x10(6) cells/Kg) or placebo (n=15 per group). UC-MSCs <em>in vitro</em>, compared to BM-MSCs, displayed a 55-fold increase in the expression of Hepatocyte Growth Factor (HGF), known to be involved in myogenesis, cell migration and immunoregulation. UC-MSC treated patients presented no adverse events related to the cell infusion and none of the patients tested at 0, 15 and 90 days presented alloantibodies to the UC-MSCs (n=7). Only the UC-MSC treated group exhibited significant improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction at 3, 6 and 12 months of follow-up assessed both through transthoracic echocardiography (p=0.0167 versus baseline) and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (p=0.025 versus baseline). Echocardiographic LVEF change from baseline to month 12 differed significantly between groups (+7.07±6.22% vs +1.85±5.60, p=0.028). In addition, at all follow-up time points, UC-MSCs treated patients displayed improvements of NYHA functional class (p=0.0167 versus baseline) and MLHFQ (p<0.05 versus baseline). At study completion, groups did not differ in mortality, heart failure admissions, arrhythmias or incident malignancy. Conclusions: Intravenous infusion of UC-MSC was safe in this group of patients with stable HFrEF under optimal medical treatment. Improvements in left ventricular function, functional status and quality of life were observed in patients treated with UC-MSCs. Trial registration number: NCT01739777 Registry URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01739777.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 143 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 13%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Student > Master 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Other 24 17%
Unknown 41 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 34%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 44 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 247. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 July 2020.
All research outputs
#66,596
of 15,561,035 outputs
Outputs from Circulation Research
#16
of 6,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,483
of 278,189 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Circulation Research
#1
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,561,035 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,362 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 278,189 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.