The Safety and Efficacy of Human Umbilical Cord-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Patients With Heart Failure and Myocardial Infarction: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

Evidence from preclinical and clinical studies suggests that human umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (HUC-MSCs) may be useful in treating heart failure and acute myocardial infarction (MI). However, the effects of stem cell therapy on patients with heart failure remain the subject of ongoing controversy, and the safety and effectiveness of HUC-MSCs therapy have not yet been proven. To date, there has been no systematic overview and meta-analysis of clinical studies using HUC-MSCs therapy for heart failure and MI. The purpose of this study is to assess the safety and efficacy of HUC-MSC therapy versus a placebo in patients with heart failure and MI. While preparing this systematic review and meta-analysis, we adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A computer literature search of PubMed was performed. We considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported data on the safety and efficacy of HUC-MSC transplantation in patients with heart failure and MI. Two investigators independently searched the literature, extracted data, and rated the quality of the included research. Pooled data were analyzed using the fixed-effect model or the random-effect model in Review Manager 5.3. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the bias of included studies. The primary outcome was ejection fraction (EF), whereas the secondary outcomes were readmission and mortality rates. Three RCTs (201 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. The overall effect did not favor either of the two groups in terms of risk of readmission (risk ratio = 0.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.22-1.15, p = 0.10) as well as mortality rate (risk ratio = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.14-1.44, p = 0.18). However, there was an improvement in EF in patients who received HUC-MSCs compared to placebo after 12 months of transplantation (mean difference (MD) = 3.21, 95% CI = 2.91-3.51, p < 0.00001). At the six-month follow-up period, there was no significant improvement in EF (MD = 1.30, 95% CI = -1.94-4.54), p = 0.43), indicating that the duration of follow-up can shape the response to therapy. Our findings indicate that HUC-MSC transplantation can improve EF but has no meaningful effect on readmission or mortality rates. Existing evidence is insufficient to confirm the efficacy of HUC-MSCs for broader therapeutic applications. Therefore, additional double-blind RCTs with larger sample sizes are required.