↓ Skip to main content

Intracoronary infusion of Wharton’s jelly-derived mesenchymal stem cells in acute myocardial infarction: double-blind, randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
165 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
210 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Intracoronary infusion of Wharton’s jelly-derived mesenchymal stem cells in acute myocardial infarction: double-blind, randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Medicine, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0399-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lian R Gao, Yu Chen, Ning K Zhang, Xi L Yang, Hui L Liu, Zhi G Wang, Xiao Y Yan, Yu Wang, Zhi M Zhu, Tian C Li, Li H Wang, Hai Y Chen, Yun D Chen, Chao L Huang, Peng Qu, Chen Yao, Bin Wang, Guang H Chen, Zhong M Wang, Zhao Y Xu, Jing Bai, Di Lu, Yan H Shen, Feng Guo, Mu Y Liu, Yong Yang, Yan C Ding, Ye Yang, Hai T Tian, Qing A Ding, Li N Li, Xin C Yang, Xiang Hu

Abstract

The use of adult stem cells is limited by the quality and quantity of host stem cells. It has been demonstrated that Wharton's jelly-derived mesenchymal stem cells (WJMSCs), a primitive stromal population, could integrate into ischemic cardiac tissues and significantly improve heart function. In this randomized, controlled trial, our aim was to assess the safety and efficacy of intracoronary WJMSCs in patients with ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction (AMI). In a multicenter trial, 116 patients with acute ST-elevation MI were randomly assigned to receive an intracoronary infusion of WJMSCs or placebo into the infarct artery at five to seven days after successful reperfusion therapy. The primary endpoint of safety: the incidence of adverse events (AEs) within 18 months, was monitored and quantified. The endpoint of efficacy: the absolute changes in myocardial viability and perfusion of the infarcted region from baseline to four months, global left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from baseline to 18 months were measured using F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission computed tomography (F-18-FDG-PET) and 99mTc-sestamibi single-photon emission computed tomography (99mTc-SPECT), and two-dimensional echocardiography, respectively. During 18 months follow-up, AEs rates and laboratory tests including tumor, immune, and hematologic indexes were not different between the two groups. The absolute increase in the myocardial viability (PET) and perfusion within the infarcted territory (SPECT) was significantly greater in the WJMSC group [6.9 ± 0.6 % (95 %CI, 5.7 to 8.2)] and [7.1 ± 0.8 % (95 %CI, 5.4 to 8.8) than in the placebo group [3.3 ± 0.7 % (95 %CI, 1.8 to 4.7), P <0.0001] and 3.9 ± 0.6(95 %CI, 2.8 to 5.0), P = 0.002] at four months. The absolute increase in the LVEF at 18 months in the WJMSC group was significantly greater than that in the placebo group [7.8 ± 0.9 (6.0 to approximately 9.7) vs. 2.8 ± 1.2 (0.4 to approximately 5.1), P = 0.001]. Concomitantly, the absolute decreases in LV end-systolic volumes and end-diastolic volumes at 18 months in the WJMSC group were significantly greater than those in the placebo group (P = 0.0004, P = 0.004, respectively). Intracoronary infusion of WJMSCs is safe and effective in patients with AMI, providing clinically relevant therapy within a favorable time window. This study encourages additional clinical trials to determine whether WJMSCs may serve as a novel alternative to BMSCs for cardiac stem cell-based therapy. Clinical Trials NCT01291329 (02/05/2011).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 210 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 207 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 19%
Student > Bachelor 30 14%
Researcher 25 12%
Student > Master 24 11%
Student > Postgraduate 8 4%
Other 32 15%
Unknown 52 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 37 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 8%
Engineering 7 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 2%
Other 25 12%
Unknown 61 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 49. 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 17 November 2022.
All research outputs
#747,943
of 23,130,383 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#524
of 3,478 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,576
of 263,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#13
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,130,383 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,478 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 263,650 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.