Stromal Vascular Fraction Transplantation as an Alternative Therapy for Ischemic Heart Failure: Anti-inflammatory Role

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The aims of this study were: (1) to show the feasibility of using adipose-derived stromal vascular fraction (SVF) as an alternative to bone marrow mono nuclear cell (BM-MNC) for cell transplantation into chronic ischemic myocardium; and (2) to explore underlying mechanisms with focus on anti-inflammation role of engrafted SVF and BM-MNC post chronic myocardial infarction (MI) against left ventricular (LV) remodelling and cardiac dysfunction.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Four weeks after left anterior descending coronary artery ligation, 32 Male Lewis rats with moderate MI were divided into 3 groups. SVF group (n = 12) had SVF cell transplantation (6 × 10⁶cells). BM-MNC group (n = 12) received BM-MNCs (6 × 10⁶) and the control (n = 10) had culture medium. At 4 weeks, after the final echocardiography, histological sections were stained with Styrus red and immunohistochemical staining was performed for α-smooth muscle actin, von Willebrand factor, CD3, CD8 and CD20.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>At 4 weeks, in SVF and BM-MNC groups, LV diastolic dimension and LV systolic dimension were smaller and fractional shortening was increased in echocardiography, compared to control group. Histology revealed highest vascular density, CD3+ and CD20+ cells in SVF transplanted group. SVF transplantation decreased myocardial mRNA expression of inflammatory cytokines TNF-α, IL-6, MMP-1, TIMP-1 and inhibited collagen deposition.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Transplantation of adipose derived SVF cells might be a useful therapeutic option for angiogenesis in chronic ischemic heart disease. Anti-inflammation role for SVF and BM transplantation might partly benefit for the cardioprotective effect for chronic ischemic myocardium.</p

Practice-Level Effects of Interventions to Improve Asthma Care in Primary Care Settings: The Pediatric Asthma Care Patient Outcomes Research Team

OBJECTIVE: To assess the practice-level effects of (1) a physician peer leader intervention and (2) peer leaders in combination with the introduction of asthma education nurses to facilitate care improvement. And, to compare findings with previously reported patient-level outcomes of trial enrollees. STUDY SETTING: Data were included on children 5–17 years old with asthma in 40 primary care practices, affiliated with managed health care plans enrolled in the Pediatric Asthma Care Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT) randomized trial. STUDY DESIGN: Primary care practices were randomly assigned to one of two care improvement arms or to usual care. Automated claims data were analyzed for 12-month periods using a repeated cross-sectional design. The primary outcome was evidence of at least one controller medication dispensed among patients with persistent asthma. Secondary outcomes included controller dispensing among all identified asthmatics, evidence of chronic controller use, and the dispensing of oral steroids. Health service utilization outcomes included numbers of ambulatory visits and hospital-based events. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The proportion of children with persistent asthma prescribed controllers increased in all study arms. No effect of the interventions on the proportion receiving controllers was detected (peer leader intervention effect 0.01, 95 percent confidence interval [CI]: −0.07, 0.08; planned care intervention effect −0.03, 95 percent CI: −0.09, 0.02). A statistical trend was seen toward an increased number of oral corticosteroid bursts dispensed in intervention practices. Significant adjusted increases in ambulatory visits of 0.08–0.10 visits per child per year were seen in the first intervention year, but only a statistical trend in these outcomes persisted into the second year of follow-up. No differences in hospital-based events were detected. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis showed a slight increase in ambulatory asthma visits as a result of asthma care improvement interventions, using automated data. The absence of detectable impact on medication use at the practice level differs from the positive intervention effect observed in patient self-reported data from trial enrollees. Analysis of automated data on nonenrollees adds information about practice-level impact of care improvement strategies. Benefits of practice-level interventions may accrue disproportionately to the subgroup of trial enrollees. The effect of such interventions may be less apparent at the level of practices or health plans