Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 559

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Radiolabeled Cell Distribution After Intramyocardial, Intracoronary, and Interstitial Retrograde Coronary Venous Delivery: Implications for Current Clinical Trials

Open access
Hou, Dongming, Youssef, Eyas Al-Shaykh, Brinton, Todd J., Zhang, Ping, Rogers, Pamela, Price, Erik T., Yeung, Alan C., Johnstone, Brian H., Yock, Paul G., March, Keith L.·2005·Circulation

Abstract

Background— Several clinical studies are evaluating the therapeutic potential of delivery of various progenitor cells for treatment of injured hearts. However, the actual fate of delivered cells has not been thoroughly assessed for any cell type. We evaluated the short-term fate of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMNCs) after intramyocardial (IM), intracoronary (IC), and interstitial retrograde coronary venous (IRV) delivery in an ischemic swine model. Methods and Results— Myocardial ischemia was created by 45 minutes of balloon occlusion of the left anterior descending coronary artery. Six days later, 10 7 111 indium-oxine–labeled human PBMNCs were delivered by IC (n=5), IM (n=6), or IRV (n=5) injection. The distribution of injected cells was assessed by γ-emission counting of harvested organs. For each delivery method, a significant fraction of delivered cells exited the heart into the pulmonary circulation, with 26±3% (IM), 47±1% (IC), and 43±3% (IRV) of cells found localized in the lungs. Within the myocardium, significantly more cells were retained after IM injection (11±3%) compared with IC (2.6±0.3%) ( P <0.05) delivery. IRV delivery efficiency (3.2±1%) trended lower than IM infusion for PBMNCs, but this difference did not reach significance. The IM technique displayed the greatest variability in delivery efficiency by comparison with the other techniques. Conclusions— The majority of delivered cells is not retained in the heart for each delivery modality. The clinical implications of these findings are potentially significant, because cells with proangiogenic or other therapeutic effects could conceivably have effects in other organs to which they are not primarily targeted but to which they are distributed. Also, we found that although IM injection was more efficient, it was less consistent in the delivery of PBMNCs compared with IC and IRV techniques.

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 · 10.1161/circulationaha.104.526749

Cites

24 of 24 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 24 references

Cited by

See all 559

Metadata

Authors
Hou, D., Youssef, E. A.-S., Brinton, T. J., Zhang, P., Rogers, P., Price, E. T., Yeung, A. C., Johnstone, B. H., Yock, P. G., & March, K. L.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2005-08-30
Volume
112
Issue
9_supplement
Pages
I150-6
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2133711544
Cited by
559
References
24
FWCI
10.15
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: Radiolabeled Cell Distribution After Intramyocardial, Intracoronary, and Interstitial Retrograde Coronary Venous Delivery: Implications for Current Clinical Trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circulationaha.104.526749
The paper
Hou, D., Youssef, E. A.-S., Brinton, T. J., Zhang, P., Rogers, P., Price, E. T., Yeung, A. C., Johnstone, B. H., Yock, P. G., & March, K. L. (2005). Radiolabeled Cell Distribution After Intramyocardial, Intracoronary, and Interstitial Retrograde Coronary Venous Delivery: Implications for Current Clinical Trials. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.104.526749

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.