Stem Cells for Cardiac Repair: Status, Mechanisms, and New Strategies

Table 1

Randomized controlled bone marrow-derived cell trials in myocardial infarction.

Studies	Mean age (years)	Patients randomized (patients followup)	LVEF baseline (%)	Followup (month)	Dose	Assessment method	Outcome
Chen et al. (2004) [8]	58	69 (69)	49	6	6×10^10	Echo	EF increased 18%
REPAIR-AMI (2006) [9]	56	204 (187)	47.6	12	2.4×10^8	Angiography	EF increased 2.5%
ASTAMI (2006) [10]	57.4	100 (100)	46.3	6	8.7×10^7	Echo/SPECT/MRI	No effect
TCT-STAMI (2006) [11]	58.5	20 (20)	56	6	4×10^7	Echo/SPECT	EF ↑ 6.7%
BOOST (2009) [12]	56.3	60 (60)	50.7	60	2.5×10^9	MRI	No effect
Janssens et al. (2006) [13]	58.7	67 (66)	47.7	4	1.7×10^8	MRI	No effect
Meluzín et al. (2006) [14]	55	66 (66)	41.7	3	10^8/10^7	SPECT/Echo	EF increased 3% (10^8). No effect (10^7)
Huikuri et al. (2008) [15]	59.5	80 (77)	60.5	6	3.6×10^8	Echo/Angiography	EF increased 4% (Echo)/7.1% (angiography)
Plewka et al. (2009) [16]	56	60 (56)	37	6	1.44×10^8	Echo	EF increased 10%
REGENT (2009) [17]	57	200 (199)	37	6	1.78×10^8/1.9×10^6 (sorted)	MRI	EF increased 3%
Wöhrle et al. (2010) [18]	61	42 (42)	54	6	3.81×10^8	MRI	EF increased 5.7%
STAR-heart [7]	59.5	391 (391)	32.83	60	6.6×10^7	Angiography	EF increased 6.2%

All studies demonstrated satisfactory patient matching. EF: ejection fraction; Echo: echocardiography; SPECT: single-photon-emission computed tomography; MRI: magnetic resonance imaging.