Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 613

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A quantitative, randomized study evaluating three methods of mesenchymal stem cell delivery following myocardial infarction

Open access
Freyman, Toby, Polin, Glenn, Osman, Hashim, Crary, Jody, Lu, MinMin, Cheng, Lan, Palasis, Maria, Wilensky, Robert L.·2006·European Heart Journal

Abstract

AIMS: Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), rare bone marrow-derived stem cell precursors of non-haematopoietic tissues, have shown promise in potentially repairing infarcted myocardium. These and similar cell types are being tested clinically, but understanding of delivery and subsequent biodistribution is lacking. This study was designed to quantitatively compare MSC engraftment rates after intravenous (IV), intracoronary (IC), or endocardial (EC) delivery in a porcine myocardial infarction (MI) model. METHODS AND RESULTS: Allogeneic, male MSCs were cultured from porcine bone marrow aspirates. Iridium nanoparticles were added during culturing and internalized by the MSCs. An MI was induced in female swine (27-40 kg in size) by prolonged balloon occlusion of the mid-left anterior descending artery. Animals (n = 6 per group) were randomized to one of three delivery methods. Cellular engraftment was determined 14+/-3 days post-delivery by measuring ex-vivo the iridium nanoparticle concentration in the infarct. Confirmation of cellular engraftment utilized both DiI and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) labelling techniques. During MSC infusion, no adverse events were noted. However, following IC infusion, half of the pigs exhibited decreased blood flow distal to the infusion site. At 14 days, the mean number of engrafted cells within the infarct zone was significantly greater (P< or =0.01) following IC infusion than either EC injection or IV infusion and EC engraftment was greater than IV engraftment (P< or =0.01). There was less systemic delivery to the lungs following [EC vs. IV (P = 0.02), EC vs. IC (P = 0.06)]. Both DiI and FISH labelling demonstrated the presence of engrafted male MSCs within the female infarcted tissue. CONCLUSION: IC and EC injection of MSCs post-MI resulted in increased engraftment within infarcted tissue when compared with IV infusion, and IC was more efficient than EC. However, IC delivery was also associated with a higher incidence of decreased coronary blood flow. EC delivery into acutely infarcted myocardial tissue was safe and well tolerated and was associated with decreased remote organ engraftment with compared with IC and IV deliveries.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/eurheartj/ehi818

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 613

Metadata

Authors
Freyman, T., Polin, G., Osman, H., Crary, J., Lu, M., Cheng, L., Palasis, M., & Wilensky, R. L.
Venue
European Heart Journal
Published
2006-03-01
Volume
27
Issue
9
Pages
1114-1122
ISSN
  • 0195-668X (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-9645
OpenAlex
W2154088932
Cited by
613
References
2
FWCI
13.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A quantitative, randomized study evaluating three methods of mesenchymal stem cell delivery following myocardial infarction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/eurheartj/ehi818
The paper
Freyman, T., Polin, G., Osman, H., Crary, J., Lu, M., Cheng, L., Palasis, M., & Wilensky, R. L. (2006). A quantitative, randomized study evaluating three methods of mesenchymal stem cell delivery following myocardial infarction. European Heart Journal. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehi818

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.