Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40427036›Full record

ReviewBiomedicines2025

Stem Cell Therapy for Myocardial Infarction Recovery: Advances, Challenges, and Future Directions.

Nicholas T Le, Matthew W Dunleavy, William Zhou, Sumrithbir S Bhatia, Rebecca D Kumar, Suyin T Woo, Gonzalo Ramirez-Pulido, Kaushik S Ramakrishnan, Ahmed H El-Hashash

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomedicines, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Pump Up the OJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Nicholas T LeDepartment of Biology, College Station Campus, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77840, USA.ORCID 0009-0007-5623-5940
Matthew W DunleavyDepartment of Biology, College Station Campus, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77840, USA.
William ZhouDepartment of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA.ORCID 0009-0006-5280-3667
Sumrithbir S BhatiaDepartment of Biology, College Station Campus, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77840, USA.
Rebecca D KumarDepartment of Biology, College Station Campus, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77840, USA.ORCID 0009-0004-0701-0890
Suyin T WooDepartment of Biology, College Station Campus, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77840, USA.
Gonzalo Ramirez-PulidoDepartment of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Houston, Houston, TX 77004, USA.
Kaushik S RamakrishnanDepartment of Biology, College Station Campus, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77840, USA.
Ahmed H El-HashashDepartment of Biology, Elizabeth City State University Campus of the University of North Carolina, Elizabeth City, NC 27909, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Myocardial infarction (MI) is a leading cause of morbidity worldwide, resulting from ischemic damage and necrosis to cardiomyocytes. While the standard treatment regimen for MI can be successful in restoring coronary perfusion, it typically does not resolve myocardial damage, which can leave patients particularly vulnerable to complications such as heart failure or electrical conduction abnormalities. Stem cell therapies offer a promising novel approach aimed at restoring cardiac function and decreasing the incidence of functional complications after an MI. This review used a literature search to evaluate the current landscape of stem cell therapy for post-MI recovery and focuses on the stem cell candidates for MI recovery therapy, delivery methods of such treatment, and their effectiveness. Both preclinical and clinical trials have demonstrated the safety of stem cells, but have struggled with limited cell retention, inconsistent efficacy, and survival. Mechanisms are employed by stem cells to promote regeneration, such as paracrine signaling, angiogenesis, and structural remodeling, in addition to the various stem cell delivery methods, including intracoronary infusion, direct myocardial injection, and intravenous administration. Furthermore, some strategies to combat past challenges in this field are discussed; for instance, extracellular vesicles, bioengineered patches, hydrogels, gene editing, and bioprinting. This article will provide a framework for future research in stem cell therapies and highlight the current progress in the field.

Indexed as

cardiac regenerationcell-based therapymyocardial infarctionregenerative medicinestem cell therapytissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID40427036
PMCPMC12109359

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.