Evaluation of the effectiveness of infusion of bone marrow derived cell in patients with heart failure: A network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials and cohort studies

Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of bone marrow-derived cells (BMC) technology in patients with heart failure and compare it with alternative therapies, including drug therapy, cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemaker (CRT-P), cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D). Methods: A systematic review study was conducted to identify all clinical studies published by 2017. Using keywords such as "Heart Failure, BMC, Drug Therapy, CRT-D, CRT-P" and combinations of the mentioned words, we searched electronic databases, including Scopus, Cochrane Library, and PubMed. The quality of the selected studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa. The primary and secondary end-points were left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (%), failure cases (Number), left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVES) (ml), and left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVED) (ml). Random-effects network meta-analyses were used to conduct a systematic comparison. Statistical analysis was done using STATA. Results: This network meta-analysis covered a total of 57 final studies and 6694 patients. The Comparative effectiveness of BMC versus CRT-D, Drug, and CRT-P methods indicated the statistically significant superiority of BMC over CRT-P (6.607, 95% CI: 2.92, 10.29) in LVEF index and overall CRT-P (-13.946, 95% CI: -18.59, -9.29) and drug therapy (-4.176, 95% CI: -8.02, -.33) in LVES index. In addition, in terms of LVED index, the BMC had statistically significant differences with CRT-P (-10.187, 95% CI: -18.85, -1.52). BMC was also dominant to all methods in failure cases as a final outcome and the difference was statistically significant i.e. BMC vs CRT-D: 0.529 (0.45, 0.62) and BMC vs Drug: 0.516 (0.44, 0.60). In none of the outcomes, the other methods were statistically more efficacious than BMC. The BMC method was superior or similar to the other methods in all outcomes. Conclusion: The results of this study showed that the BMC method, in general, and especially in terms of failure cases index, had a higher level of clinical effectiveness. However, due to the lack of data asymmetry, insufficient data and head-to-head studies, BMC in this meta-analysis might be considered as an alternative to existing treatments for heart failure.