ArticleScientific reports2021
The epicardial delivery of cardiosphere derived cells or their extracellular vesicles is safe but of limited value in experimental infarction.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Therapeutic Potential of Exosome for Cardiac Arrhythmia: A Systematic Review of Preclinical Evidence.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2025Pooled it
- Bioengineered Cellular and Acellular Therapies for Ischemic Heart Disease in Clinically Relevant Models.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Administration of Single or Repeated Doses of CDCs in a Swine Model of Reperfused Myocardial Infarction: Magnetic Resonance and Proteomics Evaluation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Cardiac repair and regeneration: cell therapy, in vivo reprogramming, and the promise of extracellular vesicles.Experimental & molecular medicine · 2025Review
- Intracoronary-Cardiosphere-Derived Cell Secretome Therapy: Effects on Ventricular Tachycardia Inducibility and Cardiac Function in a Swine Model.Biomedicines · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The epicardial administration of therapeutics via the pericardial sac offers an attractive route, since it is minimally invasive and carries no risks of coronary embolization. The aim of this study was to assess viability, safety and effectiveness of cardiosphere-derived cells (CDCs), their extracellular vesicles (EVs) or placebo administered via a mini-thoracotomy 72 h after experimental infarction in swine. The epicardial administration was completed successfully in all cases in a surgery time (knife-to-skin) below 30 min. No significant differences between groups were found in cardiac function parameters evaluated using magnetic resonance imaging before therapy and at the end of the study, despite a trend towards improved function in CDC-treated animals. Moreover, infarct size at 10 weeks was smaller in treated animals, albeit not significantly. Arrhythmia inducibility did not differ between groups. Pathological examination showed no differences, nor were there any pericardial adhesions evidenced in any case 10 weeks after surgery. These results show that the epicardial delivery of CDCs or their EVs is safe and technically easy 3 days after experimental myocardial infarction in swine, but it does not appear to have any beneficial effect on cardiac function. Our results do not support clinical translation of these therapies as implemented in this work.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.