American heart journal
-
American heart journal · Feb 2007
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative StudyIntracoronary infusion of the mobilized peripheral blood stem cell by G-CSF is better than mobilization alone by G-CSF for improvement of cardiac function and remodeling: 2-year follow-up results of the Myocardial Regeneration and Angiogenesis in Myocardial Infarction with G-CSF and Intra-Coronary Stem Cell Infusion (MAGIC Cell) 1 trial.
The results of stem cell therapy trials in myocardial infarction using granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) are inconsistent among trials, and the long-term outcome of G-CSF-based stem cell therapy remains unknown. We reported 2 years of follow-up results of 2 different strategies of G-CSF-based stem cell therapy. ⋯ Till 2 years follow-up, intracoronary cell infusion with mobilized PBSCs by G-CSF is better than G-CSF alone but not significantly better than control. Efficacy and safety of intracoronary infusion of mobilized PBSCs by G-CSF should be evaluated in a large randomized controlled trial.
-
American heart journal · Feb 2007
Progression of aortic regurgitation after surgical repair of outlet-type ventricular septal defects.
Progression of aortic regurgitation (AR) in repaired outlet ventricular septal defects (VSDs) remains unclear, especially for muscular outlet and perimembranous outlet VSDs. We tried to identify the risk factors for AR progression and aortic valve replacement (AVR) at long-term follow-up. ⋯ Aortic regurgitation progression modes after surgical VSD repair were similar among the 3 outlet-type VSDs. Aortic valve replacement was rarely necessary for patients who were operated on when they were younger than 15 years. Aortic regurgitation of a less-than-moderate degree preoperatively rarely progressed after VSD repair.
-
American heart journal · Feb 2007
ReviewN-acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: publication bias perpetuated by meta-analyses.
The use of N-acetylcysteine for the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy has been the subject of numerous clinical trials and meta-analyses. We sought to examine the possibility of a publication bias and whether meta-analyses have magnified any potential publication bias. ⋯ There was a significant publication bias that persisted throughout the life cycle of this clinical question. The bias was further amplified by meta-analyses.