Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Tratamiento con células madres para el infarto de miocardio agudo

Information

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006536.pub4Copy DOI
Database:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Version published:
  1. 30 September 2015see what's new
Type:
  1. Intervention
Stage:
  1. Review
Cochrane Editorial Group:
  1. Cochrane Heart Group

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2015 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Article metrics

Altmetric:

Cited by:

Cited 0 times via Crossref Cited-by Linking

Collapse

Authors

  • Sheila A Fisher

    Systematic Review Initiative, NHS Blood and Transplant, Oxford, UK

  • Huajun Zhang

    Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, PLA General Hospital, Institute of Cardiac Surgery, Beijing, China

  • Carolyn Doree

    Systematic Review Initiative, NHS Blood and Transplant, Oxford, UK

  • Anthony Mathur

    Department of Clinical Pharmacology, William Harvey Research Institute, London, UK

  • Enca Martin‐Rendon

    Correspondence to: Stem Cell Research Department, NHS Blood and Transplant, Oxford, UK

    [email protected]

Contributions of authors

Sheila Fisher: methodological expert, eligibility screening, data extraction, quality assessment, data analysis and preparation of the final report.

Huajun Zhang: eligibility screening, data extraction and comment on the final report.

Carolyn Doree: design and implementation of search strategies, initial eligibility screening, data verification and comment on the final report.

Anthony Mathur: clinical content expert, preparation of the final report.

Enca Martin‐Rendon: scientific content expert, eligibility screening, data extraction, quality assessment and preparation of the final report. Corresponding author who takes global responsibility for this review.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • NHS Blood and Transplant, Research and Development (CD and SW), UK.

  • William Harvey Research Institute (AM), UK.

External sources

  • National Institute of Health Research (NIHR), UK.

    This work was supported by NIHR under its Cochrane Incentive Award scheme (award number 14/175/34 to EMR). The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.

Declarations of interest

Sheila Fisher: none known.

Huajun Zhang: none known.

Carolyn Doree: none known.

Anthony Mathur: none known.

Enca Martin‐Rendon: none known.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge with thanks the contributions of Susan Brunskill, Dr David Clifford, Professor C. Hyde, Dr Simon Stanworth and Professor Suzanne Watt, for their contribution to previous versions of this review. We thank Pat Tsang for the translation of Xiao 2012 from Mandarin to English for this update and Mrs F‐J Lu for translating papers from Mandarin to English in the original version of this review.

We are grateful to those trial investigators who kindly responded to our questions and requests for further clarification or information on published and unpublished studies in this update of the review: Dr B Assmus and Prof. V Schachinger (JW Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany), Prof. M Tendera and Prof. W Wojakowski (Medical University of Silesia, Poland), Prof. S Grajek (Poznan University of Medical Science, Poland), Prof. L Chojnowska (Institute of Cardiology, Warsaw, Poland), Dr K Lunde (Oslo University Hospital, Norway), Prof. M Plewka and Dr P Lipiec (Medical University of Lodz, Poland), Prof. V Ryabov (FBGU Institute of Cardiology SB RAMS, Russia), Prof. A Hirsch (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands), Prof. RG Turan (University Hospital Cologne, Germany), Prof. P Lemarchand (University of Nantes, France), Prof. J Roncalli (Hôpital Ranguei, Toulouse, France) and Dr M Piepoli (Guglielmo da Saliceto Policherurgico Hospital, Italy).

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2015 Sep 30

Stem cell treatment for acute myocardial infarction

Review

Sheila A Fisher, Huajun Zhang, Carolyn Doree, Anthony Mathur, Enca Martin‐Rendon

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006536.pub4

2012 Feb 15

Stem cell treatment for acute myocardial infarction

Review

David M Clifford, Sheila A Fisher, Susan J Brunskill, Carolyn Doree, Anthony Mathur, Suzanne Watt, Enca Martin‐Rendon

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006536.pub3

2008 Oct 08

Stem cell treatment for acute myocardial infarction

Review

Enca Martin‐Rendon, Susan Brunskill, Carolyn Doree, Chris Hyde, Anthony Mathur, Simon Stanworth, Suzanne Watt

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006536.pub2

2007 Apr 18

Stem cell treatment for acute myocardial infarction

Protocol

Enca Martin‐Rendon, Susan Brunskill, Carolyn J Doree, Chris Hyde, Suzanne Watt, Anthony Mathur

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006536

Differences between protocol and review

The original outcomes of this review have been revised in this update, focusing on clinical outcomes. However, the surrogate endpoint of LVEF is a standard, widely reported marker for cardiac function and has been retained as a reference point with other trials and systematic reviews in AMI. Surrogate outcomes other than LVEF reported in previous versions of this review, namely engraftment and survival of the infused stem cells, left ventricular end‐systolic volume, left ventricular end‐diastolic volume, wall motion score, stroke volume index and infarct size are no longer included. We now define revised primary outcomes as (i) all‐cause mortality, (ii) cardiovascular mortality, (iii) composite measures of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and (iv) periprocedural adverse events. Secondary outcomes include morbidity, LVEF and quality of life and performance measures.

In the protocol and previous versions of the review we implemented fixed‐effect models in the first instance. It is now clear that there are many potential sources of heterogeneity across trials, and in this version of the review we have performed meta‐analyses using random‐effects models throughout.

In the writing of this version of the review we identified a systematic error in the previous versions of the review in the calculation of standard deviations for mean change from baseline LVEF values. This issue has now been corrected. In some studies it was not possible to accurately calculate the value of the standard deviation. These studies, previously analysed as mean change from baseline values, are now reported as mean value at endpoint; results from combined analyses of mean change from baseline and endpoint values are reported.

Keywords

MeSH

PICOs

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

The PICO model is widely used and taught in evidence-based health care as a strategy for formulating questions and search strategies and for characterizing clinical studies or meta-analyses. PICO stands for four different potential components of a clinical question: Patient, Population or Problem; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome.

See more on using PICO in the Cochrane Handbook.

Study flow diagram.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Cells compared to no cells, outcome: 1.1 All‐cause mortality.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 2

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Cells compared to no cells, outcome: 1.1 All‐cause mortality.

Trial sequential analysis of all‐cause mortality at long term follow‐up, assuming a long‐term mortality incidence rate of 6.1% in controls and a relative risk reduction of 35% in cell therapy patients
Figures and Tables -
Figure 3

Trial sequential analysis of all‐cause mortality at long term follow‐up, assuming a long‐term mortality incidence rate of 6.1% in controls and a relative risk reduction of 35% in cell therapy patients

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 4

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 1 All‐cause mortality.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 1 All‐cause mortality.

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 2 Cardiovascular mortality.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 2 Cardiovascular mortality.

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 3 Composite measure of death, reinfarction, re‐hospitalisation for heart failure.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 3 Composite measure of death, reinfarction, re‐hospitalisation for heart failure.

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 4 Incidence of reinfarction.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 4 Incidence of reinfarction.

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 5 Incidence of re‐hospitalisation for heart failure.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 5 Incidence of re‐hospitalisation for heart failure.

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 6 Incidence of target vessel revascularisation.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 6 Incidence of target vessel revascularisation.

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 7 Incidence of arrhythmias.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 7 Incidence of arrhythmias.

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 8 Incidence of restenosis.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 8 Incidence of restenosis.

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 9 Quality of life measures.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 9 Quality of life measures.

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 10 NYHA classification.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 10 NYHA classification.

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 11 Exercise tolerance.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 11 Exercise tolerance.

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 12 Maximum VO2 (mL/kg/min).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 12 Maximum VO2 (mL/kg/min).

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 13 VE/VCO2 slope.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 13 VE/VCO2 slope.

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 14 Peak heart rate (bpm).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 14 Peak heart rate (bpm).

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 15 LVEF measured by MRI (<12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 15 LVEF measured by MRI (<12 months).

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 16 LVEF measured by MRI (≥ 12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.16

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 16 LVEF measured by MRI (≥ 12 months).

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 17 LVEF measured by echocardiography (< 12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.17

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 17 LVEF measured by echocardiography (< 12 months).

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 18 LVEF measured by echocardiography (≥12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.18

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 18 LVEF measured by echocardiography (≥12 months).

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 19 LVEF measured by SPECT (< 12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.19

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 19 LVEF measured by SPECT (< 12 months).

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 20 LVEF measured by SPECT (≥ 12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.20

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 20 LVEF measured by SPECT (≥ 12 months).

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 21 LVEF measured by left ventricular angiography (< 12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.21

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 21 LVEF measured by left ventricular angiography (< 12 months).

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 22 LVEF measured by left ventricular angiography (≥ 12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.22

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 22 LVEF measured by left ventricular angiography (≥ 12 months).

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 23 LVEF measured by radionuclide ventriculography (RNV) (<12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.23

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 23 LVEF measured by radionuclide ventriculography (RNV) (<12 months).

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 24 LVEF measured by radionuclide ventriculography (≥ 12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.24

Comparison 1 Cells compared to no cells, Outcome 24 LVEF measured by radionuclide ventriculography (≥ 12 months).

Comparison 2 Sensitivity analysis ‐ route of cell delivery, Outcome 1 All‐cause mortality (< 12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Sensitivity analysis ‐ route of cell delivery, Outcome 1 All‐cause mortality (< 12 months).

Comparison 3 Sensitivity analysis ‐ selection bias, Outcome 1 All‐cause mortality (< 12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Sensitivity analysis ‐ selection bias, Outcome 1 All‐cause mortality (< 12 months).

Comparison 4 Sensitivity analysis ‐ attrition bias, Outcome 1 All‐cause mortality (< 12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Sensitivity analysis ‐ attrition bias, Outcome 1 All‐cause mortality (< 12 months).

Comparison 4 Sensitivity analysis ‐ attrition bias, Outcome 2 All‐cause mortality (≥ 12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Sensitivity analysis ‐ attrition bias, Outcome 2 All‐cause mortality (≥ 12 months).

Comparison 4 Sensitivity analysis ‐ attrition bias, Outcome 3 Cardiovascular mortality (< 12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 Sensitivity analysis ‐ attrition bias, Outcome 3 Cardiovascular mortality (< 12 months).

Comparison 4 Sensitivity analysis ‐ attrition bias, Outcome 4 Cardiovascular mortality (≥ 12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.4

Comparison 4 Sensitivity analysis ‐ attrition bias, Outcome 4 Cardiovascular mortality (≥ 12 months).

Comparison 5 Sensitivity analysis ‐ performance bias, Outcome 1 All‐cause mortality (< 12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Sensitivity analysis ‐ performance bias, Outcome 1 All‐cause mortality (< 12 months).

Comparison 5 Sensitivity analysis ‐ performance bias, Outcome 2 All‐cause mortality (≥ 12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 Sensitivity analysis ‐ performance bias, Outcome 2 All‐cause mortality (≥ 12 months).

Comparison 6 Subgroup analysis ‐ baseline LVEF measured by MRI, Outcome 1 All‐cause mortality (< 12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 Subgroup analysis ‐ baseline LVEF measured by MRI, Outcome 1 All‐cause mortality (< 12 months).

Comparison 6 Subgroup analysis ‐ baseline LVEF measured by MRI, Outcome 2 All‐cause mortality (≥ 12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.2

Comparison 6 Subgroup analysis ‐ baseline LVEF measured by MRI, Outcome 2 All‐cause mortality (≥ 12 months).

Comparison 6 Subgroup analysis ‐ baseline LVEF measured by MRI, Outcome 3 LVEF measured by MRI (< 12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.3

Comparison 6 Subgroup analysis ‐ baseline LVEF measured by MRI, Outcome 3 LVEF measured by MRI (< 12 months).

Comparison 6 Subgroup analysis ‐ baseline LVEF measured by MRI, Outcome 4 LVEF measured by MRI (≥ 12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.4

Comparison 6 Subgroup analysis ‐ baseline LVEF measured by MRI, Outcome 4 LVEF measured by MRI (≥ 12 months).

Comparison 7 Subgroup analysis ‐ cell type, Outcome 1 All‐cause mortality (< 12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7 Subgroup analysis ‐ cell type, Outcome 1 All‐cause mortality (< 12 months).

Comparison 7 Subgroup analysis ‐ cell type, Outcome 2 All‐cause mortality (≥ 12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.2

Comparison 7 Subgroup analysis ‐ cell type, Outcome 2 All‐cause mortality (≥ 12 months).

Comparison 8 Subgroup analysis ‐ dose of stem cells, Outcome 1 All‐cause mortality (< 12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.1

Comparison 8 Subgroup analysis ‐ dose of stem cells, Outcome 1 All‐cause mortality (< 12 months).

Comparison 8 Subgroup analysis ‐ dose of stem cells, Outcome 2 All‐cause mortality (≥ 12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.2

Comparison 8 Subgroup analysis ‐ dose of stem cells, Outcome 2 All‐cause mortality (≥ 12 months).

Comparison 8 Subgroup analysis ‐ dose of stem cells, Outcome 3 LVEF measured by MRI (< 12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.3

Comparison 8 Subgroup analysis ‐ dose of stem cells, Outcome 3 LVEF measured by MRI (< 12 months).

Comparison 8 Subgroup analysis ‐ dose of stem cells, Outcome 4 LVEF measured by MRI (≥ 12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.4

Comparison 8 Subgroup analysis ‐ dose of stem cells, Outcome 4 LVEF measured by MRI (≥ 12 months).

Comparison 8 Subgroup analysis ‐ dose of stem cells, Outcome 5 LVEF measured by left ventricular angiography (< 12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.5

Comparison 8 Subgroup analysis ‐ dose of stem cells, Outcome 5 LVEF measured by left ventricular angiography (< 12 months).

Comparison 9 Subgroup analysis ‐ timing of cell administration, Outcome 1 All‐cause mortality (< 12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 9.1

Comparison 9 Subgroup analysis ‐ timing of cell administration, Outcome 1 All‐cause mortality (< 12 months).

Comparison 9 Subgroup analysis ‐ timing of cell administration, Outcome 2 All‐cause mortality (≥ 12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 9.2

Comparison 9 Subgroup analysis ‐ timing of cell administration, Outcome 2 All‐cause mortality (≥ 12 months).

Comparison 9 Subgroup analysis ‐ timing of cell administration, Outcome 3 LVEF measured by MRI (< 12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 9.3

Comparison 9 Subgroup analysis ‐ timing of cell administration, Outcome 3 LVEF measured by MRI (< 12 months).

Comparison 9 Subgroup analysis ‐ timing of cell administration, Outcome 4 LVEF measured by MRI (≥ 12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 9.4

Comparison 9 Subgroup analysis ‐ timing of cell administration, Outcome 4 LVEF measured by MRI (≥ 12 months).

Comparison 9 Subgroup analysis ‐ timing of cell administration, Outcome 5 LVEF measured by left ventricular angiography (< 12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 9.5

Comparison 9 Subgroup analysis ‐ timing of cell administration, Outcome 5 LVEF measured by left ventricular angiography (< 12 months).

Comparison 10 Subgroup analysis ‐ heparinised cell solution, Outcome 1 All‐cause mortality (< 12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 10.1

Comparison 10 Subgroup analysis ‐ heparinised cell solution, Outcome 1 All‐cause mortality (< 12 months).

Comparison 10 Subgroup analysis ‐ heparinised cell solution, Outcome 2 All‐cause mortality (≥ 12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 10.2

Comparison 10 Subgroup analysis ‐ heparinised cell solution, Outcome 2 All‐cause mortality (≥ 12 months).

Comparison 10 Subgroup analysis ‐ heparinised cell solution, Outcome 3 LVEF measured by MRI (< 12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 10.3

Comparison 10 Subgroup analysis ‐ heparinised cell solution, Outcome 3 LVEF measured by MRI (< 12 months).

Comparison 10 Subgroup analysis ‐ heparinised cell solution, Outcome 4 LVEF measured by MRI (≥ 12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 10.4

Comparison 10 Subgroup analysis ‐ heparinised cell solution, Outcome 4 LVEF measured by MRI (≥ 12 months).

Comparison 10 Subgroup analysis ‐ heparinised cell solution, Outcome 5 LVEF measured by left ventricular angiography (< 12 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 10.5

Comparison 10 Subgroup analysis ‐ heparinised cell solution, Outcome 5 LVEF measured by left ventricular angiography (< 12 months).

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Cells compared to no cells for acute myocardial infarction (AMI)

Cells compared to no cells for acute myocardial infarction (AMI)

Patient or population: patients with AMI
Settings: Hospitalised patients
Intervention: cells
Comparison: no cells

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

No cells

Cells

All‐cause mortality ‐ short‐term follow‐up (< 12 months)

Study population

RR 0.80
(0.43 to 1.49)

1365
(17 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
MODERATE 1

Further research may change the estimate

28 per 1000

23 per 1000
(12 to 42)

All‐cause mortality ‐ long‐term follow‐up (≥ 12 months)

Study population

RR 0.93
(0.58 to 1.50)

996
(14 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
MODERATE 1

Further research may change the estimate

70 per 1000

65 per 1000
(41 to 105)

Cardiovascular mortality ‐ short‐term follow‐up (< 12 months)

Study population

RR 0.72
(0.28 to 1.82)

290
(7 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
MODERATE 1

Further research may change the estimate

54 per 1000

39 per 1000
(15 to 99)

Cardiovascular mortality ‐ long‐term follow‐up (≥ 12 months)

Study population

RR 1.04
(0.54 to 1.99)

527
(9 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
MODERATE 1

Further research may change the estimate

72 per 1000

75 per 1000
(39 to 143)

Composite death, reinfarction and hospitalisation for heart failure ‐ short‐term follow‐up (< 12 months)

Study population

RR 0.36
(0.12 to 1.14)

379
(3 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
MODERATE 1

Further research may change the estimate

66 per 1000

24 per 1000
(8 to 76)

Composite death, reinfarction and hospitalisation for heart failure ‐ long‐term follow‐up (≥ 12 months)

Study population

RR 0.63
(0.36 to 1.10)

497
(6 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
MODERATE 1

Further research may change the estimate

140 per 1000

88 per 1000
(51 to 154)

*The assumed risk is based on the observed incidence across the pooled control groups. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: confidence interval; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: risk ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1Imprecision: information size criterion not met. Small size effect.

Figures and Tables -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Cells compared to no cells for acute myocardial infarction (AMI)
Table 1. Characteristics of study participants

Study ID

Country of study

Patient population

Mean (SD) age of participants (years)

% Male

No. randomised participants receiving intervention

No. randomised participants receiving comparator

Mean duration of follow‐up

Angeli 2012

Brazil

STEMI with LVEF < 45%; successful PCI

n/r

n/r

11

11

12 months

Cao 2009

China

STEMI; PCI within 12 hours, often with drug‐eluting stent implantation

BMMNC: 50.7 (SEM 1.1)
Control: 51.1 (SEM 1.0)

BMMNC: 95.1%
Control: 93.3%

41

45

48 months

Chen 2004

China

AMI; PCI within 12 hours, mostly with stent implantation

BMMNC: 58 (7.0)
Control: 57 (5.0)

BMMNC: 94%
Control: 97%

34

35

6 months

Colombo 2011

Italy

Large anterior STEMI; PCI with bare metal stent implantation within 12 hours

CD133+: median 54 (range 47 to 60)
Control: median 56 (range 44 to 58)

CD133+: 100%
Control: 100%

5

5

12 months

Gao 2013

China

Acute STEMI; PCI with stent implantation within 12 hours

BM‐MSC: 55.0 (SEM 1.6)
Control: 58.6 (SEM 2.5)

BM‐MSC: 100%
Control: 86.4%

21

22

24 months

Ge 2006

China

First STEMI within 24 hours; PCI with stent implantation

BMMNC: 58 (11)
Control: 59 (8)

BMMNC: 80%
Control: 100%

10

10

6 months

Grajek 2010

Poland

First anterior AMI; PCI within 12 hours with bare metal stent implantation

BMMNC: 49.9 (8.4)
Control: 50.9 (9.3)

BMMNC: 87%
Control: 86%

31

14

12 months

Hirsch 2011
(HEBE)

The Netherlands

First STEMI; PCI with stent implantation within 12 hours

BMMNC: 56 (9)
Control: 55 (10)

BMMNC: 84%
Control: 86%

69

65

60 months

Huang 2006

China

AMI; PCI within 24 hours

BMMNC: 57.3 (10.1)
Control: 56.7 (9.2)

BMMNC: 65%
Control: 70%

20

20

6 months

Huang 2007

China

AMI; PCI within 24 hours with bare metal (35%) or drug‐eluting (65%) stent implantation

BMMNC: 54.8 (5.8)
Control: 55.4 (7.1)

BMMNC: 85%
Control: 90%

20

20

6 months

Huikuri 2008
(FINCELL)

Finland

STEMI; thrombolytic drugs initiated within 12 hours

BMMNC: 60 (10)
Control: 59 (10)

BMMNC: 90%
Control: 85%

40

40

6 months

Janssens 2006

Belgium

STEMI; PCI with bare metal stent implantation at median 3.7 hours (IQR 2.5 to 7.6)

BMMNC: 55.8 (11)
Control: 57.9 (10)

BMMNC: 82%
Control: 82%

33

34

4 months

Jazi 2012

Iran

Anterior MI within 1 month with a history of anterior MI and LVEF < 35%; PCI

BMMNC: 48.0 (SEM 2.5)
Control: 45.2 (SEM 3.2)

BMMNC: 66%
Control: 90%

n/r

n/r

6 months

Jin 2008

China

AMI; thrombolytic drugs and PCI

BMMNC: 62.3 (7.7)
Control: 60.6 (6.5)

BMMNC: 71.4%
Control: 75.0%

14

12

12 months

Karpov 2005

Russia

STEMI; PCI with bare metal stent implantation within 6.6 (4.9) hours and thrombolytic drugs

BMMNC: 55.2 (8.6)
Control: 52.1 (3.2)

BMMNC: 90%
Control: 73%

28

34

8.2 (0.72) years

Lee 2014
(SEED‐MSC)

South Korea

STEMI within 24 hours enrolled < 72 hours after revascularisation by
PCI and/or thrombolytic drugs

BM‐MSC: 53.9 (10.5)
Control: 54.2 (7.7)

BM‐MSC: 90.0%
Control: 89.3%

40

40

6 months

Lunde 2006
(ASTAMI)

Norway

Anterior STEMI; PCI within 2 to 24 hours

BMMNC: 58.1 (8.5)
Control: 56.7 (9.6)

BMMNC: 84%
Control: 84%

50

51

36 months

Meluzin 2008

Czech Republic

First STEMI; PCI with stent implantation within 12 hours or 3 days

BMMNC: 54 (SEM 2)
Control: 55 (SEM 2)

BMMNC: 90% (HD), 95% (LD)
Control: 90%

n/r (a)

n/r (a)

12 months

Nogueira 2009
(EMRTCC)

Brazil

STEMI; thrombolytic drugs and PCI with stent implantation within 24 hours

BMMNC: 59.7 (14.3) (AG), 53.6 (8.3) (VG)
Control: 57.2 (10.8) (AG), 57.2 (10.8) (VG)

BMMNC: 71% (AG), 70% (VG)
Control: 67%

24 (14 AG, 10 VG)

6

6 months

Penicka 2007

Czech Republic

First anterior STEMI and LVEF ≤ 50%

BMMNC: 61 (14)
Control: 54 (10)

BMMNC: 71%
Control: 100%

17

10

24 months

Piepoli 2010
(CARDIAC)

Italy

Anterior STEMI; PCI with stent implantation within 2 to 6 hours

BMMNC: 63.1 (SEM 2.7)
Control: 67.2 (SEM 2.4)

BMMNC: 68.4%
Control: 68.4%

19

19

24 months

Plewka 2009

Poland

First anterior STEMI and LVEF < 40%; PCI within 12 hours

BMMNC: 59 (9)
Control: 56 (8)

BMMNC: 68%
Control: 78%

40

20

24 months

Quyyumi 2011
(ARM‐1)

USA

Acute STEMI and LVEF ≤ 50%

CD34+: median 50.5 (IQR 45 ‐ 53) (HD), 63.0 (IQR 57 ‐ 66) (MD), 52.0 (IQR 51 ‐ 52) (LD)
Control: median 52.0 (IQR 47 ‐ 57)

CD34+: 100% (HD), 80% (MD), 80% (LD)
Control: 87%

16 (5 LD, 5 MD, 6 HD)

15

12 months

Roncalli 2010
(BONAMI)

France

Acute STEMI and LVEF ≤ 45%; PCI with bare metal stent implantation within 24 hours

BMMNC: 56 (12)
Control: 55 (11)

BMMNC: 80.8%
Control: 89.8%

52

49

12 months

Ruan 2005

China

AMI admitted within mean 12.1 (12.6) hours of onset; PCI

BMMNC: 61 (8)
Control: 58 (6)

BMMNC: 88.9
Control: 100%

9

11

6 months

Schachinger 2006
(REPAIR‐AMI)

Germany; Switzerland

Acute STEMI and visual estimated LVEF ≤ 45%; PCI with stent implantation at mean 7.5 (8.0) hours

BMMNC: 55 (11)
Control: 57 (11)

BMMNC: 82%
Control: 82%

101

103

60 months

Suarez de Lezo 2007

Spain

Anterior STEMI within 12 hours; PCI (some with stent) or thrombolytics

BMMNC: 52 (12)
Control: 55 (11)

BMMNC: 80%
Control: 70%

10

10

3 months

Sürder 2013
(SWISS‐AMI)

Switzerland

Large STEMI with LVEF < 45%; thrombolytics and PCI with stent within 24 hours

BMMNC: median 55 (IQR 15) (E), 62 (IQR 15) (L)
Control: median 56 (IQR 14.5)

BMMNC: 86.2% (E), 82.5 (L)
Control: 83.6%

133 (66 E, 67 L)

67

12 months

Tendera 2009
(REGENT)

Poland

Anterior AMI and LVEF ≤ 40%

CD34/CXCR4+: median 58

BMMNC: median 55
Control: median 59

CD34/CXCR4+: 63.7%

BMMNC: 70.6%
Control: 75.0%

160 (80 CD34/CXCR4+, 80 BMMNC)

40

6 months

Traverse 2010

USA

First anterior STEMI; PCI mostly with drug‐eluting stent implantation

BMMNC: median 52.5 (IQR 43 ‐ 64)
Control: median 57.5 (IQR 54 ‐ 59)

BMMNC: 83.3%
Control: 60.0%

30

10

15 months

Traverse 2011
(LATE‐TIME)

USA

STEMI with LVEF ≤ 45%; PCI with stent, mostly drug‐eluting, at median 3.4 (IQR 2.3 to 14.3) hours

BMMNC: 57.6 (11)
Control: 54.6 (11)

BMMNC: 79%
Control: 90%

59

29

6 months

Traverse 2012
(TIME)

USA

Anterior STEMI with LVEF < 45%; PCI with stent, mostly drug‐eluting

BMMNC: 55.6 (10.8) (day 3)/58.2 (11.3) day 7)
Control: 57.0 (12.4) (day 3)/57.0 (8.0) (day 7)

BMMNC: 88.4% (day 3)/86.1% (day 7)
Control: 87.5% (day 3)/88.3% (day 7)

43 (day 3)
36 (day 7)

24 (day 3)
17 (day 7)

12 months

Turan 2012

Germany

Acute STEMI; PCI with stent implantation

BMMNC: 61 (15)
Control: 60 (11)

BMMNC: 67%
Control: 70%

42

20

12 months

Wang 2014

China

Acute STEMI; PCI predominantly with stent implantation within 8 hours

BM‐MSC: 58 (10.2)
Control: 56.1 (9.8)

BM‐MSC: 67.9%
Control: 53.3%

30

30

6 months

Wohrle 2010
(SCAMI)

Germany

AMI; PCI with stent, some drug eluting, within 6 to 48 hours

BMMNC: 61.0 (8.1)
Control: 61.1 (9.3)

BMMNC: 90%
Control: 62%

29

13

36 months

Wollert 2004
(BOOST)

Germany

STEMI within 5 days; PCI with bare metal stent implantation, some with thrombolytic drugs

BMMNC: 53.4 (14.8)
Control: 59.2 (13.5)

BMMNC: 67%
Control: 73%

33

32

60 months

Xiao 2012

China

AMI; undergoing elective PCI within 4 weeks of AMI

BM‐MSC: 60.4 (8.9)
Control: 58.6 (10.0)

BM‐MSC: 58.8%
Control: 61.9%

17

21

3 months

Yao 2006

China

STEMI within 1 week; PCI

BMMNC: 58.3 (9.5)
Control: 58.1 (9.0)

BMMNC: 89.1%
Control: 88.0%

92

92

30 months

Yao 2009

China

First anterior STEMI; PCI within 12 hours

BMMNC: 52.1 (6.3) (SD), 51.3 (7.4) (DD)
Control: 52.7 (7.8)

BMMNC: 83.3& (SD), 80.0% (DD)
Control: 91.7%

30 (15 SD, 15 DD)

15

12 months

You 2008

China

AMI within 24 hours; thombolytic reperfusion

BM‐MSC: 60.5
Control: 62.5

BM‐MSC: 71.4%
Control: 56.3%

7

16

8 weeks

Zhukova 2009

Russia

MI of the front wall; thrombolytic drugs and/or PCI with stent implantation

BMMNC: 48 (7)
Control: 50 (10)

BMMNC: 100%
Control: 100%

8

3

36 months

STEMI, ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction; AMI, acute myocardial infarction; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; BMMNC, bone marrow mononuclear cells; BM‐MSC, bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells; SEM, standard error of the mean; SD, standard deviation; LD, low dose; MD, moderate dose; HD, high dose; AG, arterial group; VG, venous group; E, early cells; L, late cells; S, selected cells; U, unselected cells; SD, single dose; DD, double dose

(a)Meluzin 2008: 73 participants were randomised in total ‐ the number randomised to each group was not reported.

Figures and Tables -
Table 1. Characteristics of study participants
Table 2. Characteristics of study interventions

Study ID

Time of cell administration

Intervention given by:

Route of cell administration

Intervention cell type

How are cells obtained? (*)

What were they re‐suspended in?

Dose administered?

Comparator arm (placebo or control)

Angeli 2012

5 to 9 days after AMI

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

BMMNC

n/r

n/r

260 (160) million cells

Placebo (n/r)

Cao 2009

7 days after PCI

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

BMMNC

BM aspiration (**)

Heparinised saline

500 million cells

Placebo (heparinised saline)

Chen 2004

Mean 18.4 (0.5) days after PCI

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

BMMNC

BM aspiration (**)

Heparinised saline

48,000 (60,000) million cells

Placebo (heparinised saline)

Colombo 2011

Day 9 to 16 after PCI

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

CD133‐positive cells

BM aspiration (**), immunomagnetic selection to isolate CD133‐positive cells

0.9% saline solution and 10% human serum albumin

Median (range): 5.9 (4.9 to 13.5) million cells

No additional therapy (Control)

Gao 2013

Mean 17.1 (0.6) hours after PCI

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

BM‐MSC

BM aspiration (**), culture for 14 days to select MSC

Heparinised saline

3.08 (0.52) million cells

No additional therapy (Control)

Ge 2006

Within 15 hours of AMI

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

BMMNC

n/r

n/r

40 million cells

Placebo (n/r)

Grajek 2010

5 to 6 days after PCI

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

BMMNC

BM aspiration (**)

X‐vivo 15 medium and 2% autologous plasma

410 (180) million cells

No additional therapy (Control)

Hirsch 2011
(HEBE)

3 to 8 days after PCI

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

BMMNC

BM aspiration (**)

Heparinised saline and 4 % human serum albumin

296 (164) million cells

No additional therapy (Control)

Huang 2006

Within 2 hours of PCI

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

BMMNC

BM aspiration (**)

Heparinised saline

180 (420) million cells

Placebo (heparinised saline)

Huang 2007

Within 2 hours of PCI

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

BMMNC

BM aspiration (**)

Heparinised saline

120 (650) million cells

Placebo (heparinised saline)

Huikuri 2008
(FINCELL)

Mean 70 (36) hours after thombolysis

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

BMMNC

BM aspiration (**)

Heparinised saline and 50% autologous serum

402 (196) million cells

Placebo (heparinised saline and 50% autologous serum)

Janssens 2006

Within 20 hours of PCI

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

BMMNC

BM aspiration (**)

Heparinised saline and 5% autologous serum solution

172 (72) million cells

Placebo (heparinised saline and 5% autologous serum)

Jazi 2012

Within 1 month of AMI

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

BMMNC

BM aspiration (**)

M199 medium containing VEGF, bFGF, IGF‐1 and 10% human serum

2460 (SEM 840) million cells

No additional therapy (Control)

Jin 2008

At least 7 to 10 days after AMI

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

BMMNC

BM aspiration (**)

Heparinised saline

62.7 (17.5) million cells

No additional therapy (Control)

Karpov 2005

7 to 21 days after AMI

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

BMMNC

BM aspiration (**)

n/r

88.5 (49.2) million cells

No additional therapy (Control)

Lee 2014
(SEED‐MSC)

25 (2.4) days after BM aspiration at 3.8 (1.5) days after admission

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

BM‐MSC

BM aspiration (**), culture for 2 to 3 weeks to isolate MSC

n/r

72 (9) million cells

No additional therapy (Control)

Lunde 2006
(ASTAMI)

4 to 8 days after AMI

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

BMMNC

BM aspiration (**)

Heparinised plasma

Median (interquartile range): 68 (54 to 130) million cells

No additional therapy (Control)

Meluzin 2008

5 to 9 days (mean 7 (0.3) days) after AMI

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

BMMNC

BM aspiration (**)

n/r

LD: 10 million cells (range: 9 to 20 million)

HD: 100 million cells (90 to 200 million cells)

No additional therapy (Control)

Nogueira 2009
(EMRTCC)

AG: 3 to 6 days (mean 5.5 (1.28) days) after PCI

VG: 3 to 6 days (mean 6.1 (1.37) days) after PCI

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA (AG) or IRCV (VG)

BMMNC

BM aspiration (**)

Saline solution and 5% human serum albumin

100 million cells

No additional therapy (Control)

Penicka 2007

4 to 11 days (median 9 days) after PCI

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

BMMNC

BM aspiration (**)

n/r

2,640 million cells

No additional therapy (Control)

Piepoli 2010
(CARDIAC)

4 to 7 days after AMI

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

BMMNC

BM aspiration (**)

Phosphate buffered saline ‐ EDTA and 5% human serum albumin

249 million cells

No additional therapy (Control)

Plewka 2009

3 to 11 days (mean 7 (2) days after AMI

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

BMMNC

BM aspiration (**)

Heparinised saline

144 (49) million cells

No additional therapy (Control)

Quyyumi 2011
(ARM‐1)

LD: median 191.4 (IQR 167 to 201) hours, MD: 210.0 (IQR 194 to 210) hours,

HD: 207.3 (IQR 191 to 215) hours after AMI

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

CD34‐positive cells

BM aspiration (**), immunomagnetic selection to isolate CD34‐positive cells

Heparinised phosphate buffered saline, 40% autologous serum and 1% human serum albumin

LD: 4.8 (0.4) million cells

MD: 9.9 (0.7) million cells

HD: 14.3 (1.6) million cells

No additional therapy (Control)

Roncalli 2010
(BONAMI)

At 7 to 10 days (mean 9 (SD 1.7)) days

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

BMMNC

BM aspiration (**)

4% human serum albumin solution

98.3 (8.7) million cells

No additional therapy (Control)

Ruan 2005

Within 2 hours of successful PTCA

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

BMMNC

n/r

Diluted autologous serum

n/r

Placebo (diluted autologous serum)

Schachinger 2006
(REPAIR‐AMI)

Within 5 days (mean 4.3 (1.3) days) of PCI

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

BMMNC

BM aspiration (**)

X‐VIVO medium and 20% autologous serum

236 (174) million cells

Placebo (X‐VIVO medium and 20% autologous serum)

Suarez de Lezo 2007

5 to 12 days (mean 7 (2) days) after AMI

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

BMMNC

BM aspiration (**)

Heparinised saline

900 (300) million

Placebo (heparinised saline)

Sürder 2013
(SWISS‐AMI)

5 to 7 days (E) or 3 to 4 weeks (L) after PCI

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

BMMNC

BM aspiration (**)

Serum‐free medium and 20% of autologous serum

E: 159.7 (125.8) million cells

L: 139.5 (120.5) million cells

No additional therapy (Control)

Tendera 2009
(REGENT)

Median 7 (IQR 3 to 12) days after PCI

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

Selected cells (S): CD34/CXCR4‐ positive cells

Unselected cells (U): BMMNC

BM aspiration (**). Selected cells: immunomagnetic selection to isolate CD34/CXCR4‐positive cells

Phosphate‐buffered saline

S: 1.9 million cells

U: 178 million cells

No additional therapy (Control)

Traverse 2010

3 to 10 days (median 4.5 (IQR 4 to 7) days) after PCI

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

BMMNC

BM aspiration (**)

0.9% saline solution and 5% human serum albumin

100 million cells

Placebo (0.9% saline solution and 5% human serum albumin)

Traverse 2011
(LATE‐TIME)

2 to 3 weeks (median 17.5 (IQR 15.5 to 20.0) days) after AMI

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

BMMNC

BM aspiration (**)

0.9% saline solution and 5% human serum albumin

147 (17) million cells

Placebo (0.9% saline solution and 5% human serum albumin)

Traverse 2012
(TIME)

3 days or 7 days after AMI

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

BMMNC

BM aspiration (**)

0.9% saline solution and 5% human serum albumin

150 million cells

Placebo (0.9% saline solution and 5% human serum albumin)

Turan 2012

7 days after AMI

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

BMMNC

BM aspiration (**)

n/r

n/r

No additional therapy (control)

Wang 2014

15 (1) days after PCI

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

BM‐MSC

BM aspiration (**) and culture of MSC

Heparinised saline

100 million cells

Placebo (heparinised saline)

Wohrle 2010
(SCAMI)

5 to 7 days (median 6.1 (IQR 5.5 to 7.3) days) after AMI

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

BMMNC

BM aspiration (**)

0.9% saline solution, 2% human serum albumin and 0.1% autologous erythrocytes

381 (130) million cells

Placebo (0.9% saline solution, 2% human serum albumin and 0.1% autologous erythrocytes)

Wollert 2004
(BOOST)

4.7 (1.3) days after PCI

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

BMMNC

BM aspiration (**)

Heparinised saline

2460 (940) million cells

No additional therapy (Control)

Xiao 2012

Within 4 weeks of AMI

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

BM‐MSC

BM aspiration (**) and culture of MSC

n/r

460 (160) million cells

Placebo (heparinised saline)

Yao 2006

Within 7 days of AMI

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

BMMNC

BM aspiration (**)

Lymphocyte isolation medium

210 (370) million cells

No additional therapy (control)

Yao 2009

SD: 3 to 7 days after PCI

DD 3 to 7 days after PCI; second dose at 3 months

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

BMMNC

BM aspiration (**)

Heparinised plasma

SD: 410 million cells

DD: 190 (SE 120) million cells

Placebo (heparinised plasma)

You 2008

At day 14

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

BM‐MSC

BM aspiration (**), second centrifugation and culture of MSC

n/r

75 million cells

No additional therapy (control)

Zhukova 2009

14 to 19 days after AMI

Cardiologist

Infusion into IRCA

BMMNC

BM aspiration (**)

Autologous serum

50 million cells

No additional therapy (control)

AMI ‐ acute myocardial infarction, PCI ‐ percutaneous coronary intervention, BM ‐ bone marrow, PTCA ‐ percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, IRCA ‐ infarct‐related coronary artery, IRCV ‐ infarct‐related coronary vein, BMMNC ‐ bone marrow mononuclear cells, BM‐MSC ‐ mesenchymal stem cells; LD ‐ low dose, MD ‐ moderate dose, HD ‐ high dose, AG ‐ arterial group, VG ‐ venous group, E ‐ early cells, L ‐ late cells, S ‐ selected cells, U ‐ unselected cells, SD ‐ single dose, DD ‐ double dose

** BM aspiration‐ bone marrow aspiration and isolation of bone marrow mononuclear cells by gradient centrifugation

Figures and Tables -
Table 2. Characteristics of study interventions
Table 3. Summary of outcome reporting

Study ID

Primary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes

All‐cause mortality

Cardiovascular mortality

Composite MACE (a)

Reinfarction

Hospital readmission for HF

Target vessel revascularisation

Arrhythmias

Restenosis

NYHA class

Quality of life (QoL)

Exercise tolerance

LVEF (b)

ST

LT

ST

LT

ST

LT

ST

LT

ST

LT

ST

LT

ST

LT

ST

LT

ST

LT

ST

LT

ST

LT

ST

LT

Angeli 2012

PR*

PR*

PR*

PR*

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

FR

Cao 2009

PR*

FR

NR

NR

NR

NR

PR*

PR*

NR

NR

PR*

FR

NR

NR

PR*

FR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

FR

Chen 2004

PR*

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

PR*

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

Colombo 2011

PR*

PR*

NR

PR*

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

PR

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

PR

FR

FR

Gao 2013

FR

FR

FR

FR

NR

FR

FR

FR

NR

FR

NR

NR

PR*

PR*

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

FR

Ge 2006

PR*

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

PR*

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

Grajek 2010

NR

FR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

FR

FR

FR

Hirsch 2011

PR*

FR

NR

NR

FR

FR

FR

FR

FR

FR

FR

FR

FR

FR

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

FR

Huang 2006

PR*

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

PR*

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

Huang 2007

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

Huikuri 2008

FR

NR

FR

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

FR

NR

NR

NR

PR*

NR

PR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

FR

NR

Janssens 2006

FR

NR

PR*

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

PR*

NR

FR

NR

FR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

FR

Jazi 2012

PR*

NR

PR*

NR

NR

NR

PR*

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

PR*

NR

PR*

NR

FR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

Jin 2008

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

FR

FR

FR

NR

NR

FR

FR

Karpov 2005

PR*

FR

PR*

FR

NR

NR

FR

FR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

PR

FR

NR

FR

NR

FR

NR

Lee 2014

PR*

NR

PR*

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

NR

NR

PR*

NR

PR*

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

Lunde 2006

NR

FR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

FR

FR

FR

NR

FR

NR

FR

FR

NR

FR

NR

FR

NR

FR

NR

FR

FR

Meluzin 2008

PR*

PR*

PR*

PR*

NR

NR

FR

FR

FR

FR

NR

NR

PR*

NR

FR

PR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

FR

Nogueira 2009

FR

NR

PR*

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

PR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

Penicka 2007

FR

FR

FR

FR

NR

FR

FR

FR

FR

FR

NR

NR

NR

PR*

NR

FR

NR

FR

NR

PR

NR

NR

FR

FR

Piepoli 2010

FR

FR

FR

FR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

PR

NR

NR

FR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

PR

FR

FR

Plewka 2009

FR

FR

FR

FR

NR

PR

FR

FR

NR

FR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

FR

Quyyumi 2011

FR

FR

FR

FR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

FR

NR

PR*

NR

FR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

Roncalli 2010

FR

PR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

FR

NR

NR

NR

PR

PR

NR

NR

FR

PR

Ruan 2005

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

Schachinger 2006

FR

FR

NR

FR

FR

FR

FR

FR

FR

FR

FR

FR

FR

FR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

FR

Suarez de Lezo 2007

PR*

NR

PR*

NR

NR

NR

PR*

NR

NR

NR

PR*

NR

PR*

NR

PR*

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

Sürder 2013

FR

PR

NR

NR

PR

PR

FR

NR

FR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

FR

Tendera 2009

FR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

Traverse 2010

PR*

NR

PR*

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

Traverse 2011

FR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

FR

NR

FR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

Traverse 2012

FR

FR

NR

NR

PR

PR

FR

FR

FR

FR

FR

FR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

FR

Turan 2012

PR*

NR

PR*

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

FR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

FR

Wang 2014

FR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

Wohrle 2010

FR

NR

NR

NR

FR

FR

PR*

NR

FR

NR

PR*

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

FR

Wollert 2004

PR*

FR

NR

FR

NR

FR

FR

FR

FR

FR

PR*

FR

NR

NR

FR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

FR

Xiao 2012

NR

NR

NR

NR

PR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

Yao 2006

NR

PR*

NR

PR*

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

FR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

Yao 2009

PR*

PR*

PR*

PR*

NR

NR

FR

FR

NR

NR

NR

NR

PR

PR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

FR

You 2008

PR*

NR

PR*

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

PR*

NR

NR

NR

PR

NR

PR

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

Zhukova 2009

FR

FR

FR

FR

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

FR

Total (%) analysed (c)

1365 (50.0)

996 (36.5)

290 (10.6)

527 (19.3)

379 (13.9)

497 (18.2)

1521 (55.7)

1116 (40.8)

1194 (43.7)

825 (30.2)

789 (28.9)

758 (27.7)

525 (19.2)

457 (16.7)

641 (23.5)

395 (14.4)

398 (14.6)

237 (8.7)

154 (5.6)

26 (1.0)

267 (9.8)

45 (1.6)

1135

(41.5)(d)

727

(26.6)(d)

ST ‐ short‐term follow‐up (< 12 months)

LT ‐ long‐term follow‐up (≥ 12 months)

FR ‐ full reporting, outcome included in analysis

PR ‐ partial reporting, insufficient information on outcome reported for inclusion in analysis

* no incidence of outcome observed

NR ‐ outcome not reported

HF ‐ heart failure; NYHA ‐ New York Heart Association; LVEF ‐ left ventricular ejection fraction

(a)Composite measure of mortality, reinfarction or rehospitalisation for heart failure.

(b)LVEF measured by any method.

(c)Total number of participants included in meta‐analysis of outcome (% of total number of participants from all included studies).

(d)Total number analysed given for LVEF measured by magnetic resonance imaging.

Figures and Tables -
Table 3. Summary of outcome reporting
Table 4. Clinical (dichotomous) outcomes

Study ID

Number of analysed participants

All‐cause mortality events

Cardiovascular mortality events

Reinfarction

Target vessel revascularisation

Composite MACE (death, reinfarction, rehospitalisation for HF)

Cells

No cells

Cells

No cells

Length of follow‐up

Cells

No cells

Length of follow‐up

Cells

No cells

Length of follow‐up

Cells

No cells

Length of follow‐up

Cells

No cells

Length of follow‐up

Angeli 2012

11

11

0

0

12 months

0

0

12 months

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Cao 2009

41

45

0

1

48 months

NR

NR

0

0

48 months

0

1

48 months

NR

NR

Chen 2004

34

35

0

0

6 months

0

0

6 months

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Colombo 2011

5

4

0

0

12 months

0

0

12 months

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Gao 2013

21

21

1

0

24 months

1

0

24 months

1

0

24 months

NR

NR

2

1

24 months

Ge 2006

10

10

0

0

6 months

0

0

6 months

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Grajek 2010

27

12

1

0

12 months

NR

NR

1 (a)

1 (a)

6 months

3 (a)

4 (a)

6 months

NR

NR

Hirsch 2011

65

60

1

2

60 months

NR

NR

1

1

60 months

20

14

60 months

2

5

60 months

Huang 2006

20

20

0

0

6 months

0

0

6 months

0

0

6 months

NR

NR

NR

NR

Huang 2007

20

20

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Huikuri 2008

40

40

0

1

6 months

0

1

6 months

0

2

6 months

NR

NR

NR

NR

Janssens 2006

33

34

1

0

4 months

0

0

4 months

NR

NR

4 months

NR

NR

NR

NR

Jazi 2012

16

16

0

0

6 months

0

0

6 months

0

0

6 months

NR

NR

NR

NR

Jin 2008

14

12

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Karpov 2005

26

32

10

4

8.2 years

8

2

8.2 years

2

2

8.2 years

NR

NR

NR

NR

Lee 2014

30

28

0

0

6 months

0

0

6 months

2

0

6 months

0

0

6 months

NR

NR

Lunde 2006

49

50

1

1

36 months

NR

NR

1

2

36 months

12

9

36 months

NR

NR

Meluzin 2008

44

20

0

0

12 months

0

0

12 months

2

0

12 months

NR

NR

NR

NR

Nogueira 2009

24

6

1

0

6 months

0

0

6 months

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Penicka 2007

17

10

3

0

24 months

2

0

24 months

1

1

24 months

NR

NR

6

5

24 months

Piepoli 2010

19

19

2

4

12 months

2

3

12 months

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Plewka 2009

40

20

2

2

24 months

2

2

24 months

1

1

24 months

NR

NR

NR (c)

NR (c)

Quyyumi 2011

16

15

1

0

12 months

1

0

12 months

NR

NR

2

1

12 months

NR

NR

Roncalli 2010

48

44

1

0

3 months

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Ruan 2005

9

11

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Schachinger 2006

100 (b)

100 (b)

7

15

60 months

5

9

60 months

5 (b)

7 (b)

24 months

18 (b)

28 (b)

60 months

4

15

24 months

Suarez de Lezo 2007

10

10

0

0

3 months

0

0

3 months

0

0

3 months

0

0

3 months

NR

NR

Sürder 2013

115

60

2

0

4 months

0

0

4 months

1

1

4 months

NR

NR

NR (d)

NR (d)

Tendera 2009

160

40

2

1

6 months

NR

NR

3

2

6 months

25

7

6 months

NR

NR

Traverse 2010

30

10

0

0

15 months

0

0

15 months

0

1

15 months

0

1

15 months

NR

NR

Traverse 2011

58

29

0

1

6 months

NR

NR

1

0

6 months

1

2

6 months

NR

NR

Traverse 2012

79

41

1

0

12 months

NR

NR

2

3

12 months

4

4

12 months

NR (e)

NR (e)

Turan 2012

42

20

0

0

6 months

0

0

6 months

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Wang 2014

28

30

1

2

6 months

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Wohrle 2010

29

13

1

1

6 months

NR

NR

0

0

6 months

0

0

6 months

5

1

36 months

Wollert 2004

30

30

2

2

61 months

NR

NR

1

1

61 months

6

4

61 months

5

6

61 months

Xiao 2012

17

21

NR

NR

3 months

NR

NR

3 months

NR

NR

3 months

NR

NR

3 months

NR (f)

NR (f)

3 months

Yao 2006

90

84

0

0

30 months

0

0

30 months

2

2

30 months

NR

NR

NR

NR

Yao 2009

27

12

0

0

12 months

0

0

12 months

0

1

12 months

NR

NR

NR

NR

You 2008

7

16

0

0

8 weeks

0

0

8 weeks

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Zhukova 2009

8

3

2

1

36 months *

2

1

36 months *

1

0

36 months

NR

NR

NR

NR

(a)Grajek 2010: 31 BMMNC and 14 controls available for analysis at 6 months.

(b)Schachinger 2006: 100 BMMNC and 101 controls analysed at 24 months; 3 patients (2 BMMNC and 1 control) only had mortality data at 60 months.

(c)Plewka 2009: Composite death, MI, hospitalisation for HF, TVR: 9 BMMNC and 11 controls at 24 months.

(d)Sürder 2013: Composite death, MI, revascularisation, hospitalisation for HF: 9 BMMNC and 8 controls at 12 months.

(e)Traverse 2012: Composite death, MI, hospitalisation for HF, revascularisation, ICD, stroke: 18 BMMNC and 9 controls at 12 months.

(f)Xiao 2012: Composite MACE (undefined): 3 BMMNC and 2 controls at 3 months.

Figures and Tables -
Table 4. Clinical (dichotomous) outcomes
Table 5. Periprocedural adverse events

Study ID

Periprocedural adverse events

Angeli 2012

Not reported

Cao 2009

1 x transient acute heart failure 7 days after cell transplantation

Chen 2004

Not reported

Colombo 2011

No adverse events were reported until the end of hospitalisation

Gao 2013

1 x death 3 days after cell transplantation due to suspected acute in‐stent thrombosis; 1 x serious complication of acute coronary occlusion during cell injection with subsequent recurrent MI

Ge 2006

No bleeding complications at BM puncture site and no angina aggravation, malignant diseases or substantial arrhythmias after PCI and BM transfer during hospitalisation in either treatment group

Grajek 2010

Not reported

Hirsch 2011

No complications of cell harvesting. A CK or CK‐MB elevation between 1 and 2 times the ULN was detected in 4 patients and between 2 and 3 times the ULN in one patient. 1 x occluded infarct‐related artery (patient did not receive cell therapy as randomised). During cell catheterisation: 1 x coronary spasm, 1 x transient brachycardia and 1 x thrombus in the infarct related artery

Huang 2006

Not reported

Huang 2007

Not reported

Huikuri 2008

3 x mild self terminating vasovagal reactions during BM aspiration; no other procedural complications relating to aspiration. Subacute stent thrombosis occurred in 4 patients (1 x cell therapy and 3 x placebo); 1 x cell therapy patient had 'no reflow' phenomenon after stenting of the infarcted artery

Janssens 2006

11 x treatment‐related tachycardia (supraventricular arrhythmia: 5 in the cell therapy group and 6 in the control group); 3 patients in the control group experienced non‐sustained ventricular tachycardia

Jazi 2012

Not reported

Jin 2008

Not reported

Karpov 2005

No complications of BM aspiration or cell infusion

Lee 2014

No serious inflammatory reactions or bleeding complications from BM aspiration. No (or mild) angina during balloon inflation. No serious procedural complications related to intracoronary administration of MSCs including ventricular arrhythmia, thrombus formation or dissection. Periprocedural MI occurred in 2 patients

Lunde 2006

2 x stent thrombosis in the acute phase in the cell therapy group (no cells administered as randomised); 1 x sustained ventricular tachycardia before cell administration; 1 x ventricular fibrillation at day 6, 24 hours after injection.1 x pulseless ventricular tachycardia in control patient ‐ converted to sinus rhythm by means of a precordial thump on day 2

Meluzin 2008

2 patients had fever and 1 patient had brachycardia, all within 20 hours prior to cells (these patients did not receive cell therapy as randomised). 3 x cell therapy‐related complications: 1 x intimal dissection during repeat balloon inflations at time of cell implantation, 1 x short‐lasting fever on day of scheduled transplantation, 1 x small thrombus in infarct‐related artery diagnosed immediately after cell transplantation. 2 x control patients had repeat MI 2 days after the hospital discharge due to in‐stent thrombosis

Nogueira 2009

Ck‐MB elevation (3 x normal value) in 3 patients in the arterial group and 1 patient in venous group. 1 x tortuous anterior interventricular vein (patient did not receive cell therapy as randomised). No new pericardial effusions

Penicka 2007

2 x serious complications (1 x stent thrombosis with reinfarction immediately after BM harvest, patient died 2 weeks later due to sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome; 1 x ventricular septal rupture before cell injection, patient died 3 months later from severe heart failure).

Piepoli 2010

All procedures well tolerated. No inflammatory reaction or abscess detected at the site of puncture after BM harvest. The invasive coronary catheterisation was associated with some mild angina during balloon inflations for cell infusions. No procedural complications during cardiac catheterisation related to cell injections (no ventricular arrhythmia, new thrombus formation or embolism after cell infusion or dissections due to balloon inflations)

Plewka 2009

Not reported

Quyyumi 2011

1 high‐dose treatment group patient died soon after cell infusion from ventricular fibrillation attributed to recurrent MI from stent thrombosis preceding cell infusion. 1 x high‐dose treatment group patient with acute stent thrombosis before cell infusion (patient withdrawn from study). Cell therapy group: 1 x arrhythmia, 1 x chest pain, 3 x musculoskeletal pain, 2 x upper respiratory tract infection, 2 x rash, 3 x dyspnoea, 1 x fever. Control group: 1 x arrhythmia, 3 x musculoskeletal pain, 1 x upper respiratory tract infection, 1 x dyspnoea

Roncalli 2010

Cell therapy group: 1 x transient ischaemic attack and 1 x thrombopenia induced by GP2b3a inhibitor (both excluded before BM aspiration). Control group: 1 x steroids given for angioneurotic oedema; 1 x post‐MI ventricular septal defect (both withdrawn before day 7)

Ruan 2005

Not reported

Schachinger 2006

No bleeding complications or haematoma formation at puncture site of BM aspiration. 1 x patient was excluded owing to fever and an increase in the level of C‐reactive protein. 1 x patient in placebo group had angiographic evidence of a thrombus in a non‐infarct‐related artery (placebo medium not infused). 2 x deaths, cause not reported (1 x cell therapy group and 1 x placebo) and 2 x reinfarction (cell therapy group) prior to discharge

Suarez de Lezo 2007

Not reported

Sürder 2013

1 death in cell therapy group prior to transplantation, cause of death not reported

Tendera 2009

1 patient developed arteriovenous fistula of the femoral artery after the procedure and required surgical treatment. No complications arising from BM cell transfer

Traverse 2010

BM aspiration carried out without complications. No patient experienced a rise in troponin or procedure‐related complication following infusion

Traverse 2011

No complications associated with BM aspiration. 2 x patients underwent additional stenting at time of cell infusion (1 x distal stent edge dissection related to primary PCI procedure; 1 x possible dissection related to stop‐flow procedure). 1 x postpartum spontaneous coronary dissection with diffuse thrombus throughout stented region of left anterior descending artery; 1 x presence of severe left main coronary stenosis identified before transfusion (this patient did not receive cell therapy as randomised). No patients experienced postprocedural increase in cardiac enzymes

Traverse 2012

No complications associated with BM harvesting or intracoronary infusion. 1 x death in the BM cell therapy group due to subarachnoid haemorrhage prior to cell delivery

Turan 2012

No procedural or cell‐induced complications and no side effects in any patient

Wang 2014

Not reported

Wohrle 2010

Not reported

Wollert 2004

No bleeding complications at BM harvest site. No increases in troponin T serum levels in any patients 24 hours after BM transfer

Xiao 2012

Not reported

Yao 2006

1 x temporary hypotension, 2 x brachycardia, 7 x new hyperuricaemia

Yao 2009

1 x brachycardia with subsequent pacemaker implantation, 1 x fever (these patients did not receive cells as randomised)

You 2008

Not reported

Zhukova 2009

Not reported

MI, acute myocardial infarction; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; BM, bone marrow; MSC, mesenchymal stem cells; ULN, upper limit of normal

Figures and Tables -
Table 5. Periprocedural adverse events
Table 6. Quality of life and performance measures

Study ID

No. analysed participants

Quality of life (QoL) assessment

Reported data (EP/MC/SR)

Performance assessment

Summary measures of performance

Reported data (EP/MC/SR)

Mean follow‐up

Cells

No cells

Colombo 2011

5

4

n/r

n/r

Exercise stress test

Peak HR, peak MET, peak double product (SBPxHR), peak predicted HR

EP (median)

12 months

Grajek 2010

31

14

n/r

n/r

Cardiopulmonary exercise treadmill test (modified Bruce protocol)

METs, maximum VO2 , VE/VCO2 slope, RER, peak SBP, peak HR, VO2 anaerobic threshold, HR recovery

EP

12 months

Hirsch 2011

65

60

n/r

n/r

NYHA class

EP

60 months

Huikuri 2008

27

27

n/r

n/r

Symptom‐limited maximal exercise test

METs, peak HR, T‐wave alternans

EP, MC

6 months

Jazi 2012

16

16

n/r

n/r

NYHA class

EP

6 months

Jin 2008

14

12

MLHFQ

EP

NYHA class

EP

12 months

Karpov 2005

16 (a)

28 (a)

MLHFQ

EP

Six minute walk test; functional class (undefined)

Distance (metres)

EP

6 months

Lunde 2006

50 (b)

50 (b)

SF‐36

EP, MC

Electrically braked bicycle ergometer; NYHA class

Time (min), maximum VO2 , VE/VCO2 slope etc., peak HR

EP, MC

6 months

Penicka 2007

14

10

SF‐36

SR

NYHA class

EP

24 months

Piepoli 2010

17

15

n/r

n/r

Cardiopulmonary exercise treadmill test (modified Bruce protocol)

Exercise duration (min), maximum VO2 , VE/VCO2 slope

MC

12 months

Roncalli 2010

52

49

MLHFQ

SR

n/r

12 months

Sürder 2013

117

61

n/r

n/r

NYHA class

EP

4 months

Turan 2012

42

20

n/r

n/r

NYHA class

EP

12 months

You 2008

7

16

QoL (no details)

NYHA class

SR

8 weeks

MLHFQ, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire; NYHA, New York Heart Association; SF‐36, Short‐Form 36 Quality of Life; MET, metabolic equivalent test (mL/kg/min); HR, heart rate (bpm); SBP, systolic blood pressure (mmHg); RER, respiratory exchange ratio; VE, minute ventilation; VO2, oxygen volume; VCO2, carbon dioxide volume; EP, endpoint; MC, mean change from baseline; SR, summary results; n/r, not reported.

(a)Karpov 2005: QoL was measured in 37 participants (cells: 18 cells, no cells: 19)

(b)Lunde 2006: QoL was measured in 46 BMMNC and 45 controls; exercise tolerance was measured in 49 BMMNC and 50 controls

Figures and Tables -
Table 6. Quality of life and performance measures
Table 7. Surrogate (continuous) outcome: LVEF

Study ID

No. randomised participants

No. analysed participants

Baseline LVEF

Mean follow‐up of LVEF

Cells

No cells

Cells

No cells

Cells

No cells

Measured by MRI

Hirsch 2011 (HEBE)

69

65

59

52

43.7 (9.0)%

42.4 (8.3)%

24 months

Huang 2006

20

20

20

20

44.5 (7.1)%

43.4 (6.7)%

6 months

Janssens 2006

33

34

30

30

48.5 (7.2)%

46.9 (8.2)%

12 months

Lunde 2006 (ASTAMI)

50

51

44

44

54.8 (13.6)%

53.6 (11.6)%

36 months

Quyyumi 2011 (AMR‐1)

16

15

11

10

LD: 47.0 (13)%

MD: 47.3 (11)%

HD: 49.9 (7)%

53.2(10)%

6 months

Roncalli 2010 (BONAMI)

52

49

47

43

37.0 (9.8)%

38.7 (9.2)%

3 months

Schachinger 2006 (REPAIR‐AMI)

101

103

26

33

47.8 (6.2)%

47.7 (6.2)%

60 months (a)

Sürder 2013 (SWISS‐AMI)

133

67

107

60

E: 36.5 (9.9)%

L: 36.3 (8.2)%

40.0 (9.9)%

4 months

Tendera 2009(REGENT)

160

40

97

20

S: 33.9 (8.6)%

U: 35.6 (6.5)%

38.9 (5.2)%

6 months

Traverse 2010

30

10

30

10

49 (9.5)%

48.6 (8.5)%

6 months

Traverse 2011 (LATE‐TIME)

59

29

55

26

48.7 (12)%

45.3 (9.9)%

6 months

Traverse 2012 (TIME)

80

40

65

30

46.2 (9.6)%

46.3 (8.5)%

12 months

Wohrle 2010 (SCAMI)

29

13

28

12

53.5 (9.3)%

55.7 (9.4)%

36 months

Wollert 2004 (BOOST)

33

32

30

30

50 (10)%

51.3 (9.3)%

60 months

Yao 2009

30

15

27

11

SD: 32.5 (3.6)%

DD: 33.7 (4.7)%

32.3 (2.0)%

12 months

Zhukova 2009

8

3

6 (b)

1 (b)

33.4 (3)%

28 (4)%

36 months (b)

Measured by echocardiography

Angeli 2012

11

11

11

11

n/r

n/r

12 months

Cao 2009

41

45

41

45

41.3 (2.8)%

40.7 (3.1)%

48 months

Colombo 2011

5

5

5

4

44.6 (8.8)%

43.2 (9.1)%

12 months

Gao 2013

21

22

19

20

50.8 (6.5)%

51.4 (7.2)%

24 months

Ge 2006

10

10

10

10

53.8 (9.2)%

58.2 (7.5)%

6 months

Grajek 2010

31

14

27

12

50.3 (9.8)%

50.8 (12)%

12 months

Huang 2007

20

20

20

20

48.5 (5.5)%

48.2 (6.30%

6 months

Huikuri 2008 (FINCELL)

40

40

39

38

56 (10)%

57 (10)%

6 months

Jin 2008

14

12

14

12

54.3 (5.5)%

55.8 (5.9)%

12 months

Karpov 2005

22

22

16

10

49.3 (11.1)%

47.0 (7.5)%

6 months

Lee 2014 (SEED‐MSC)

40

40

30

28

48.1 (8.0)%

51.0 (9.2)%

6 months

Lunde 2006 (ASTAMI)

50

51

50

50

45.7 (9.4)%

46.9 (8.6)%

36 months

Nogueira 2009 (EMRTCC)

24

6

22

6

AG: 48.3 (10.4)%

VG: 48.6 (7.1)%

47.6 (14.3)%

6 months

Penicka 2007

17

10

14

10

39.2 (9.2)%

39.4 (5.6)%

24 months

Piepoli 2010 (CARDIAC)

19

19

17

15

38.4 (6.4)%

38.9 (5.6)%

24 months

Plewka 2009

40

20

38

18

35 (6)%

33 (7)%

24 months

Roncalli 2010 (BONAMI)

52

49

47

43

38.1 (7.9)%

39.8 (7.0)%

12 months (c)

Ruan 2005

9

11

9

11

53.4 (8.9)%

53.5 (5.8)%

6 months

Xiao 2012

17

21

17

21

35.6 (3.1)%

35.7 (3.1)%

3 months

You 2008

7

16

7

16

37 (4.6)%

38.6 (5.4)%

8 weeks

Measured by SPECT

Angeli 2012

11

11

11

11

n/r

n/r

12 months

Cao 2009

41

45

41

45

41.2 (3.1)%

40.8 (3.3)%

48 months

Lee 2014 (SEED‐MSC)

40

40

30

28

49.0 (11.7)%

52.3 (9.3)%

6 months

Lunde 2006 (ASTAMI)

50

51

50

50

41.3 (10.4)%

42.6 (11.7)%

6 months

Meluzin 2008

44

22

40

20

LD: 41 (2)%

HD: 30 (2)%

40 (2)%

12 months

Piepoli 2010 (CARDIAC)

19

19

17

15

36.6 (8.2)%

37.5 (8.9)%

24 months

Plewka 2009

40

20

26

10

41.2 (10.1)%

40.0 (14.2)%

6 months

Measured by LV angiography

Chen 2004

34

35

34

35

49 (9)%

48 (10)%

6 months

Huang 2006

20

20

20

20

56.7 (9.7)%

57.3 (8.2)%

6 months

Huikuri 2008 (FINCELL)

40

40

36

36

59 (11)%

62 (12)%

6 months

Jazi 2012

n/r

n/r

16

16

33.37 (11.2)%

29.0 (7.5)%

6 months

Schachinger 2006 (REPAIR‐AMI)

101

103

95

92

48.3 (9.2)%

46.9 (10.4)%

4 months

Suarez de Lezo 2007

10

10

10

10

37 (5)%

39 (6)%

3 months

Turan 2012

42

20

42

20

43 (10)%

45 (10)%

12 months

Wang 2014

30

30

27

28

37.8 (6.3)%

20.2 (2.5)% (d)

6 months

Yao 2006

92

92

90

84

n/r

n/r

6 months

Measured by RNV

Grajek 2010

31

14

27

12

45.4 (10.2)%

42.7 (7.4)%

12 months

Nogueira 2009 (EMRTCC)

24

6

22

6

AG: 41.0 (10.3)%

VG: 39.9 (7.4)%

40.1 (12.4)%

6 months

Roncalli 2010 (BONAMI)

52

49

47

43

35.6 (7.0)%

37.0 (6.7)%

3 months

Measured by gated PET

Colombo 2011

5

5

5

4

36.6 (5.4)%

37.6 (7.0)%

12 months

n/r ‐ not reported

LD ‐ low dose, MD ‐ moderate dose, HD ‐ high dose, AG ‐ arterial group, VG ‐ venous group, E ‐ early cells, L ‐ late cells, S ‐ selected cells, U ‐ unselected cells, SD ‐ single dose, DD ‐ double dose

(a)Schachinger 2006: MRI was performed at five‐year follow‐up but summary results only were reported; 24‐month data are used in meta‐analysis.

(b)Zhukova 2009: 24‐month data were used in the analysis as only one control was available at 36 months.

(c)Roncalli 2010: echocardiography was performed at 12‐month follow‐up but summary results only were reported; three‐month data are used in meta‐analysis.

(d)Wang 2014: the reported baseline LVEF value in the control group is assumed to be an error since the difference between values at baseline and endpoint (49.1%) is not significant. We have been unable to clarify the correct value with the study authors.

Figures and Tables -
Table 7. Surrogate (continuous) outcome: LVEF
Comparison 1. Cells compared to no cells

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 All‐cause mortality Show forest plot

23

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Short‐term follow‐up (< 12 months)

17

1365

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.80 [0.43, 1.49]

1.2 Long‐term follow‐up (≥ 12 months)

14

996

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.58, 1.50]

2 Cardiovascular mortality Show forest plot

10

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Short‐term follow‐up (< 12 months)

7

290

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.72 [0.28, 1.82]

2.2 Long‐term follow‐up (≥ 12 months)

9

527

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.04 [0.54, 1.99]

3 Composite measure of death, reinfarction, re‐hospitalisation for heart failure Show forest plot

6

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 Short‐term follow‐up (< 12 months)

3

379

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.36 [0.12, 1.14]

3.2 Long‐term follow‐up (≥ 12 months)

6

497

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.63 [0.36, 1.10]

4 Incidence of reinfarction Show forest plot

20

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 Short‐term follow‐up (< 12 months)

17

1521

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.66 [0.33, 1.30]

4.2 Long‐term follow‐up (≥ 12 months)

14

1116

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.64 [0.36, 1.12]

5 Incidence of re‐hospitalisation for heart failure Show forest plot

16

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 Short‐term follow‐up (< 12 months)

13

1194

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.81 [0.40, 1.62]

5.2 Long‐term follow‐up (≥ 12 months)

10

825

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.55 [0.30, 1.00]

6 Incidence of target vessel revascularisation Show forest plot

11

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.1 Short‐term follow‐up (< 12 months)

6

789

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.70 [0.47, 1.06]

6.2 Long‐term follow‐up (≥ 12 months)

8

758

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.67, 1.37]

7 Incidence of arrhythmias Show forest plot

8

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

7.1 Short‐term follow‐up (< 12 months)

5

525

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.51, 1.98]

7.2 Long‐term follow‐up (≥ 12 months)

5

457

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.39 [0.58, 3.37]

8 Incidence of restenosis Show forest plot

13

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

8.1 Short‐term follow‐up (< 12 months)

8

641

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.63, 1.43]

8.2 Long‐term follow‐up (≥ 12 months)

6

395

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.58 [0.27, 1.25]

9 Quality of life measures Show forest plot

3

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

9.1 Short‐term follow‐up (< 12 months)

3

154

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.58 [‐0.67, 1.83]

9.2 Long‐term follow‐up (≥ 12 months)

1

26

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

3.23 [2.01, 4.46]

10 NYHA classification Show forest plot

7

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

10.1 Short‐term follow‐up (< 12 months)

5

398

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.07 [‐0.24, 0.09]

10.2 Long‐term follow‐up (≥ 12 months)

4

237

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.23 [‐0.53, 0.07]

11 Exercise tolerance Show forest plot

5

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

11.1 Short‐term follow‐up (< 12 months)

5

267

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.19 [‐0.06, 0.43]

11.2 Long‐term follow‐up (≥ 12 months)

1

45

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.05 [‐0.68, 0.58]

12 Maximum VO2 (mL/kg/min) Show forest plot

3

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

12.1 Short‐term follow‐up (< 12 months)

3

175

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.15 [‐0.77, 3.07]

12.2 Long‐term follow‐up (≥ 12 months)

1

45

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.40 [‐3.76, 4.56]

13 VE/VCO2 slope Show forest plot

3

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

13.1 Short‐term follow‐up (< 12 months)

3

174

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.28 [‐1.02, 1.57]

13.2 Long‐term follow‐up (≥ 12 months)

1

45

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [‐3.07, 3.07]

14 Peak heart rate (bpm) Show forest plot

3

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

14.1 Short‐term follow‐up (< 12 months)

3

198

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.55 [‐6.79, 7.89]

14.2 Long‐term follow‐up (≥ 12 months)

1

45

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐9.10 [‐20.59, 2.39]

15 LVEF measured by MRI (<12 months) Show forest plot

15

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

15.1 Mean change from baseline

13

1057

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.43 [‐1.16, 2.03]

15.2 Mean value at endpoint

15

1125

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.81 [‐0.78, 2.41]

15.3 Combined

15

1135

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.05 [‐0.56, 2.67]

16 LVEF measured by MRI (≥ 12 months) Show forest plot

9

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

16.1 Mean change from baseline

5

438

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.03 [‐1.72, 1.78]

16.2 Mean value at endpoint

8

551

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.40 [‐1.54, 4.34]

16.3 Combined

9

718

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.27 [‐1.14, 3.68]

17 LVEF measured by echocardiography (< 12 months) Show forest plot

20

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

17.1 Mean change from baseline

6

372

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

2.72 [1.50, 3.95]

17.2 Mean value at endpoint

20

862

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

2.15 [0.89, 3.42]

17.3 Combined

20

862

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

2.31 [1.30, 3.33]

18 LVEF measured by echocardiography (≥12 months) Show forest plot

10

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

18.1 Mean change from baseline

3

127

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.35 [‐2.25, 4.96]

18.2 Mean value at endpoint

9

377

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

2.87 [1.42, 4.31]

18.3 Combined

10

433

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

2.09 [0.74, 3.44]

19 LVEF measured by SPECT (< 12 months) Show forest plot

7

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

19.1 Mean change from baseline

5

286

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

2.72 [0.23, 5.21]

19.2 Mean value at endpoint

6

375

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

2.19 [0.58, 3.81]

19.3 Combined

7

394

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

2.52 [0.59, 4.44]

20 LVEF measured by SPECT (≥ 12 months) Show forest plot

4

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

20.1 Mean change from baseline

2

92

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

5.63 [1.77, 9.49]

20.2 Mean value at endpoint

3

181

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

3.46 [0.82, 6.11]

20.3 Combined

4

200

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

4.42 [2.68, 6.16]

21 LVEF measured by left ventricular angiography (< 12 months) Show forest plot

9

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

21.1 Mean change from baseline

3

279

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

6.43 [0.60, 12.27]

21.2 Mean value at endpoint

9

711

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

4.94 [0.53, 9.35]

21.3 Combined

9

711

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

5.09 [0.95, 9.24]

22 LVEF measured by left ventricular angiography (≥ 12 months) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

22.1 Mean value at endpoint

1

62

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

8.0 [4.27, 11.73]

23 LVEF measured by radionuclide ventriculography (RNV) (<12 months) Show forest plot

3

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

23.1 Mean change from baseline

2

118

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.91 [‐3.11, 4.94]

23.2 Mean value at endpoint

3

157

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.08 [‐4.88, 7.04]

23.3 Combined

3

157

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.79 [‐1.86, 5.43]

24 LVEF measured by radionuclide ventriculography (≥ 12 months) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

24.1 Mean value at endpoint

1

39

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

6.30 [‐1.03, 13.63]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. Cells compared to no cells
Comparison 2. Sensitivity analysis ‐ route of cell delivery

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 All‐cause mortality (< 12 months) Show forest plot

16

1335

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.80 [0.42, 1.51]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 2. Sensitivity analysis ‐ route of cell delivery
Comparison 3. Sensitivity analysis ‐ selection bias

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 All‐cause mortality (< 12 months) Show forest plot

16

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Excluding studies with high risk of selection bias

16

1307

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.83 [0.43, 1.57]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 3. Sensitivity analysis ‐ selection bias
Comparison 4. Sensitivity analysis ‐ attrition bias

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 All‐cause mortality (< 12 months) Show forest plot

13

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Excluding studies with a high or unclear risk of attrition bias

13

899

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.78 [0.38, 1.61]

2 All‐cause mortality (≥ 12 months) Show forest plot

11

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Excluding studies with a high or unclear risk of attrition bias

11

847

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.38, 1.17]

3 Cardiovascular mortality (< 12 months) Show forest plot

5

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 Excluding studies with high or unclear risk of attrition bias

5

199

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.69 [0.22, 2.14]

4 Cardiovascular mortality (≥ 12 months) Show forest plot

6

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 Excluding studies with high or unclear risk of attrition bias

6

378

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.71 [0.34, 1.50]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 4. Sensitivity analysis ‐ attrition bias
Comparison 5. Sensitivity analysis ‐ performance bias

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 All‐cause mortality (< 12 months) Show forest plot

8

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Excluding studies with a high risk of performance bias

8

669

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.60 [0.23, 1.56]

2 All‐cause mortality (≥ 12 months) Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Excluding studies with a high risk of performance bias

3

406

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.50 [0.22, 1.10]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 5. Sensitivity analysis ‐ performance bias
Comparison 6. Subgroup analysis ‐ baseline LVEF measured by MRI

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 All‐cause mortality (< 12 months) Show forest plot

10

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Baseline LVEF < 45%

4

478

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.77 [0.19, 3.16]

1.2 Baseline LVEF ≥ 45%

6

551

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.32, 2.98]

2 All‐cause mortality (≥ 12 months) Show forest plot

7

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Baseline LVEF < 45%

2

136

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.61 [0.13, 2.83]

2.2 Baseline LVEF ≥ 45%

5

510

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.64 [0.31, 1.30]

3 LVEF measured by MRI (< 12 months) Show forest plot

15

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 Baseline LVEF < 45%

6

579

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

2.28 [0.43, 4.13]

3.2 Baseline LVEF ≥ 45%

9

556

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.09 [‐2.42, 2.24]

4 LVEF measured by MRI (≥ 12 months) Show forest plot

9

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 Baseline LVEF < 45%

4

326

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

3.93 [‐0.15, 8.02]

4.2 Baseline LVEF ≥ 45%

5

342

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.15 [‐2.34, 2.05]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 6. Subgroup analysis ‐ baseline LVEF measured by MRI
Comparison 7. Subgroup analysis ‐ cell type

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 All‐cause mortality (< 12 months) Show forest plot

17

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Mononuclear cells

14

1153

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.38, 1.46]

1.2 Mesenchymal stem cells

2

101

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.01 [0.15, 6.60]

1.3 Haematopoietic progenitor cells

2

151

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.13, 8.36]

2 All‐cause mortality (≥ 12 months) Show forest plot

14

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Mononuclear cells

12

923

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.54, 1.43]

2.2 Mesenchymal stem cells

1

42

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

3.0 [0.13, 69.70]

2.3 Haematopoietic progenitor cells

1

31

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.82 [0.12, 64.39]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 7. Subgroup analysis ‐ cell type
Comparison 8. Subgroup analysis ‐ dose of stem cells

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 All‐cause mortality (< 12 months) Show forest plot

16

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 ≤ 108 cells

5

297

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.03 [0.27, 3.96]

1.2 > 108 and ≤ 109 cells

12

1081

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.66 [0.33, 1.34]

2 All‐cause mortality (≥ 12 months) Show forest plot

14

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 ≤ 108 cells

5

241

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.20 [0.97, 4.95]

2.2 > 108 and ≤ 109 cells

7

668

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.52 [0.28, 0.97]

2.3 > 109 cells

2

87

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.56 [0.32, 7.55]

3 LVEF measured by MRI (< 12 months) Show forest plot

14

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 ≤ 108 cells

4

270

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.00 [‐3.51, 3.52]

3.2 > 108 and ≤ 109 cells

11

825

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.08 [‐0.53, 2.69]

4 LVEF measured by MRI (≥ 12 months) Show forest plot

9

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 ≤ 108 cells

2

98

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

3.60 [‐4.24, 11.44]

4.2 > 108 and ≤ 109 cells

7

570

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.48 [‐1.44, 4.40]

5 LVEF measured by left ventricular angiography (< 12 months) Show forest plot

8

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 > 108 and ≤ 109 cells

6

548

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

2.26 [‐0.71, 5.23]

5.2 > 109 cells

2

101

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

11.64 [7.52, 15.75]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 8. Subgroup analysis ‐ dose of stem cells
Comparison 9. Subgroup analysis ‐ timing of cell administration

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 All‐cause mortality (< 12 months) Show forest plot

13

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 ≤ 10 days since AMI

10

839

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.02 [0.45, 2.30]

1.2 > 10 days since AMI

3

156

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.28 [0.06, 1.36]

2 All‐cause mortality (≥ 12 months) Show forest plot

10

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 ≤ 10 days since AMI

9

809

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.61 [0.33, 1.11]

2.2 > 10 days since AMI

1

11

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.75 [0.10, 5.54]

3 LVEF measured by MRI (< 12 months) Show forest plot

13

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 ≤ 10 days since AMI

12

867

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.15 [‐0.66, 2.97]

3.2 > 10 days since AMI

2

190

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.71 [‐4.90, 3.48]

4 LVEF measured by MRI (≥ 12 months) Show forest plot

9

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 ≤ 10 days since AMI

9

669

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.26 [‐1.20, 3.71]

4.2 > 10 days since AMI

1

109

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.17 [‐2.59, 4.93]

5 LVEF measured by left ventricular angiography (< 12 months) Show forest plot

8

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 ≤ 10 days since AMI

5

535

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

2.20 [‐1.51, 5.91]

5.2 > 10 days since AMI

3

156

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

7.42 [‐1.83, 16.66]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 9. Subgroup analysis ‐ timing of cell administration
Comparison 10. Subgroup analysis ‐ heparinised cell solution

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 All‐cause mortality (< 12 months) Show forest plot

16

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Heparin

6

339

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.31, 2.66]

1.2 No heparin

10

999

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.66 [0.30, 1.45]

2 All‐cause mortality (≥ 12 months) Show forest plot

12

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Heparin

7

503

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.83 [0.33, 2.10]

2.2 No heparin

5

408

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.55 [0.28, 1.08]

3 LVEF measured by MRI (< 12 months) Show forest plot

15

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 Heparin

7

434

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.99 [‐0.62, 4.59]

3.2 No heparin

8

701

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.25 [‐1.67, 2.17]

4 LVEF measured by MRI (≥ 12 months) Show forest plot

9

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 Heparin

5

357

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.76 [‐1.93, 5.45]

4.2 No heparin

4

361

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.53 [‐2.14, 3.20]

5 LVEF measured by left ventricular angiography (< 12 months) Show forest plot

8

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 Heparin

5

256

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

6.82 [0.25, 13.39]

5.2 No heparin

3

393

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.91 [‐3.46, 7.27]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 10. Subgroup analysis ‐ heparinised cell solution