2006
DOI: 10.1161/circulationaha.105.610469
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: Background-Phase 1 clinical trials of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) treatment after myocardial infarction have indicated that G-CSF treatment is safe and may improve left ventricular function. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial aimed to assess the efficacy of subcutaneous G-CSF injections on left ventricular function in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Methods and Results-Seventy-eight patients (62 men; average age, 56 years) with ST-elevation myocardial in… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

4
133
1
3

Year Published

2006
2006
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 312 publications
(141 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
4
133
1
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Our data demonstrate that there is no significant difference in the cell surface markers expressed in H-PDLSCs and P-PDLSCs. Unlike after acute injury, which induces stem cells homing [29], we find that chronic Figure 4. Smurf1 expression increases in P-PDLSCs and negatively regulates osteogenic differentiation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 76%
“…Our data demonstrate that there is no significant difference in the cell surface markers expressed in H-PDLSCs and P-PDLSCs. Unlike after acute injury, which induces stem cells homing [29], we find that chronic Figure 4. Smurf1 expression increases in P-PDLSCs and negatively regulates osteogenic differentiation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 76%
“…In addition to direct transplantation, mobilization of BMSCs with cytokines such as granulocytecolony stimulating factor (G-CSF) and stem cell factor has been reported to enhance myocardial repair and improve cardiac function (Anversa and Nadal-Ginard, 2002;Askari et al, 2003). However, in a recent trial, the subcutaneous administration of G-CSF after acute myocardial infarction (MI) did not lead to further improvement in ventricular function compared with conventional treatment (Ripa et al, 2006). These controversial findings suggest the need to understand the molecular mechanisms involved with stem cell migration and engraftment into the infarcted myocardium.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, a lot of conflicting results were reported about improvement in cardiac function. In 2006, three prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials in patients diagnosed with ST-segment elevation acute MI who had successful reperfusion by PCI were performed [28][29][30]. They used the same dose of G-CSF (10 μg/kg of body weight) for 5 or 6 consecutive days.…”
Section: Clinical Trialsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Primary or secondary end-points included cardiac function assessed by MRI, and the follow up varied from 3 to 6 months. All studies failed to show benefits of G-CSF treatment in LVEF either when PCI was done early (<12hs) [29,30] or late (mean of 31hs-2 to 107hs) [28]. At the end of 1 year of follow up G-CSF was still inefficacious in improving cardiac function [31].…”
Section: Clinical Trialsmentioning
confidence: 99%