While human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs) have been tested in ischemic cardiomyopathy, few studies exist in chronic non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (NIDCM).
The POSEIDON-DCM trial is a randomized comparison of safety and efficacy of autologous (auto) vs. allogeneic (allo) bone marrow-derived hMSCs in NIDCM.
Thirty-seven patients were randomized to either allo- or auto-hMSCs in a 1:1 ratio. Patients were recruited between December 2011 and July 2015 at the University of Miami Hospital. Patients (age: 55.8 +11.2; 32% female) received hMSCs (100 million) by transendocardial stem cell injection (TESI) in ten left ventricular sites by NOGA Catheter. Treated patients were evaluated at baseline, 30 days, 3-, 6-, and 12-months for safety: serious adverse events (SAE), and efficacy endpoints: Ejection Fraction (EF), Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ), Six Minute Walk Test (6MWT), MACE, and immune-biomarkers. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, #NCT01392625.
There were no 30-day treatment-emergent (TE)-SAEs. 12-month SAE incidence was 28.2% (95% CI: 12.8, 55.1) in allo, and 63.5% (95% CI: 40.8, 85.7; p=0.1004) in auto. One allo-group patient developed an elevated donor specific cPRA. EF increased in allo by 8.0 units (95% Cl: 2.8, 13.2; p=0.004), and in auto: 5.4 units (95% Cl: -1.4, 12.1; p=0.116, allo vs. auto p=0.4887). 6MWT increased for allo: 37.0 meters (95% Cl: 2.0 to 72.0; p=0.04), but not auto: 7.3 meters (95% Cl: -47.8, 33.3; p=0.71, auto vs. allo p=0.0168). MLHFQ score decreased in allo (p=0.0022), and auto (p=0.463; p=0.172). The MACE rate was lower in allo vs. auto (p=0.0186). Tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) decreased (p=0.0001 for each), to a greater extent in allo vs. auto at six-months (p=0.05).
These findings demonstrate safety and support greater, clinically meaningful efficacy of allo-hMSC vs. auto-hMSC in NIDCM patients. Pivotal trials of allo-hMSCs are warranted based on these results.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
7
2%
Engineering
7
2%
Other
32
11%
Unknown
118
40%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 55. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 June 2026.
All research outputs
#980,367
of 34,410,315 outputs
Outputs from JACC
#2,440
of 22,478 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,208
of 333,987 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC
#69
of 306 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,410,315 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,478 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,987 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 306 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
