Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Stem Cells International logoLink to Stem Cells International
. 2018 May 24;2018:7528464. doi: 10.1155/2018/7528464

Autologous Stem Cell Therapy in Critical Limb Ischemia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Baocheng Xie 1, Houlong Luo 2, Yusheng Zhang 1, Qinghui Wang 1, Chenhui Zhou 3, Daohua Xu 1,4,✉
PMCID: PMC5994285  PMID: 29977308

Abstract

Objective

Critical limb ischemia (CLI) is the most dangerous stage of peripheral artery disease (PAD). Many basic researches and clinical treatment had been focused on stem cell transplantation for CLI. This systematic review was performed to review evidence for safety and efficacy of autologous stem cell therapy in CLI.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed in the SinoMed, PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register databases from building database to January 2018.

Results

Meta-analysis showed that cell therapy significantly increased the probability of ulcer healing (RR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.45–2.06), angiogenesis (RR = 5.91, 95% CI = 2.49–14.02), and reduced the amputation rates (RR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.46–0.76). Ankle-brachial index (ABI) (MD = 0.13, 95% CI = 0.11–0.15), TcO2 (MD = 12.22, 95% CI = 5.03–19.41), and pain-free walking distance (MD = 144.84, 95% CI = 53.03–236.66) were significantly better in the cell therapy group than in the control group (P < 0.01).

Conclusions

The results of this meta-analysis indicate that autologous stem cell therapy is safe and effective in CLI. However, higher quality and larger RCTs are required for further investigation to support clinical application of stem cell transplantation.

1. Introduction

Critical limb ischemia (CLI) is the most dangerous stage of peripheral artery disease (PAD) caused by distal tissue hypoxia injury and lack of blood supply, including distal extremity ischemia, ulcers, or gangrene [1, 2]. The prevalence of PAD in the general population is 3% to 10% [3, 4]. The data showed that 11.2% of patients with PAD would deteriorate to CLI each year, and the patient with CLI had the high amputation and mortality rates [5]. Currently, patients in PAD could be treated by percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) or intravascular thrombolysis [6, 7]; however, 10%–30% of patients with CLI are not candidates for revascularization surgery. Many patients lose the chance of PTA, and the prognosis is poor after surgery, because the patients have peripheral atherosclerosis obliterans, extensive vascular disease, and/or serious damage caused by severe ischemic lesions of limbs [8, 9]. The studies [3, 10] found that vascular remodeling and other means still cannot alleviate the symptoms of ischemia. The amputation rate is 10%–40%, and the mortality rate is up to 20% in patients with CLI within 6 months [11]. The angiogenesis is the optimal treatment for CLI, and autologous stem cell therapy is an emerging alternative treatment [12, 13].

Since 2002, Tateishi-Yuyama et al. [14] have reported that bone marrow mononuclear cell transplantation was safe and effective for therapeutic angiogenesis in patients with CLI and it could significantly promote ulcer healing and reduce the amputation rate. During the past decades, a large number of basic researches and clinical treatment had been focused on stem cell transplantation for CLI [15]. The stem cell transplantation may improve pathophysiologic processes by stimulating the activities of tissue repair cells and inducing into vascular endothelial cells [16, 17]. However, only few evidences were available regarding safety and efficacy of autologous stem cell therapy in CLI. Meta-analyses have already become supporting evidence-based medicine. Although, there were some meta-analyses of stem cell therapy in CLI, the small amount of studies or incomplete indicators lead to the results of deviation and unconvinced [18, 19]. Therefore, this study of 23 RCTs with a total of 962 patients was included in order to acquire high-quality evidence for the clinical efficacy and safety of autologous stem cell therapy in CLI.

2. Methods

2.1. Literature Search

We searched the clinical studies, including SinoMed, PubMed, Embase, http://ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register databases from building database to January 2018. Using the terms number 1 “stem cells,” “mononuclear cells,” “granulocyte colony-stimulating factor,” “G-CSF,” “peripheral blood,” and “bone marrow,” the above search terms were connected with “OR”. Number 2 “critical limb ischemia,” “peripheral arterial disease,” “peripheral vascular disease,” “diabetic foot,” “revascularization,” “angiogenesis,” or “arteriogenesis”, the above search terms were connected with “OR”. Number 3 “randomized controlled”. Then, the above search terms of number 1, number 2, and number 3 were connected with “AND”. We manually searched the references of the original and review articles for possible related studies.

2.2. Study Selection

For the systematic review, we searched 23 clinical studies that met the following criteria: (1) patients with PAD or CLI, (2) received autologous stem cell therapy, (3) reported as randomized controlled trials (RCTs), (4) the control group received standard therapy with or without sham injections, (5) at least 1-month follow-up, and (6) reported efficacy and safety issues.

2.3. Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

Two of the authors independently extracted the data of literature and made a quality assessment process according to the predefined inclusion criteria. Difference among the two authors was solved by discussion with the third author. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool for the quality evaluation of the included studies. This quality evaluating strategy included criteria concerning aspects of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessors, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other biases [20].

2.4. Statistical Analysis

In this meta-analysis, statistical analysis was performed using RevMan software version 5.3 and we used risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for the analysis of dichotomous data, whereas the continuous data were presented as weighted mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SWD) with 95% CI. Heterogeneity between the studies was determined using the chi-square test, with the I2 statistic, where I2 < 25% represent mild inconsistency, values between 25% and 50% represent moderate inconsistency and values > 50% suggest severe heterogeneity between the studies. We defined I2 > 50% as an indicator of significant heterogeneity among the trials. We used random effects' models to estimate the pooled results to minimize the influence of potential clinical heterogeneity among the studies, and the statistical significance was assumed at P < 0.05. Subgroup analysis was assessed using the χ2 test. Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the robustness of merged results, by removing individual study. Publication bias was assessed by means of funnel plots.

3. Results

3.1. Search Results

A systematic search of studies published until January 2018 was performed through SinoMed, PubMed, Embase, http://ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register databases from building database. A total of 1130 literatures were searched, 23 RCTs were included in the inclusion criteria, and the literature search procedure was shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Flow chart and strategy of the meta-analysis.

3.2. Study Characteristics

The general characteristics of the included studies were listed in Table 1. The included studies were 23 RCTs with a total of 962 patients. In these studies, the cell therapy group was one of the following stem cells: bone marrow mononuclear cells (BMMNCs, n = 7 studies), bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BMMSCs, n = 4 studies), bone marrow stem cells (BMSCs, n = 5 studies), peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMNCs, n = 2 studies), peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs, n = 4 studies), CD34+ (n = 1 study), or CD133+ stem cells (n = 1 study). The transplantation method of stem cell was intramuscular (n = 20 studies) or intra-arterial (n = 3 studies). The patients in the control group received either placebo or standard care (n = 23 studies). The dose of stem cells was divided into three groups: high dose (109, n = 5 studies), medium dose (108, n = 5 studies), and low dose (107, n = 5 studies). The mean follow-ups of the studies were 3 months (n = 9 studies), 6 months (n = 8 studies), and 12 months (n = 3 studies).

Table 1.

Characteristics of included clinical studies.

Study Sample (T/C) Age (T/C) Intervention Injection Follow-up Number of cells Evaluation
T C
Huang et al. [37] 14/14 71.1/70.9 PBMNCs Standard care IM 12 w 3 × 109 ①, ②, ③, ④, ⑥, ⑦
Arai et al. [23] 13/12 62/68 BMMNCs Standard care IM 1 mo 1–3 × 109 ②, ⑤
Barć et al. [24] 14/15 Unclear BMMNCs Standard care IM 6 mo Unclear ①, ②
Lu et al. [38] 22/23 66.6/65.5 BMMSCs Standard care IM 12 w 7.32 × 108–5.61 × 109 ①, ②, ③, ④, ⑥
Dash et al. [39] 12/12 40 BMMSCs Standard care IM 12 w 4.5-6 × 107 ②, ⑥
Shi et al. [40] 25/25 Unclear BMSCs Standard care IM 3 mo Unclear ②, ④, ⑦
Procházka et al. [30] 42/54 66.2/64.1 BMSCs Standard care IA 4 mo 1.96 × 108 ①, ②, ③
Wen and Huang [34] 30/30 63 PBSCs Standard care IM 3 mo 3 × 109 ①, ②, ③, ④, ⑦
Lu [15] 21/41 63 BMMNCs Standard care IM 24 w 9.3 × 108 ①, ②, ③, ④, ⑤
Lu et al. [15] 20/41 65 BMMSCs Standard care IM 24 w 9.6 × 108 ①, ②, ③, ④, ⑤
Walter et al. [25] 19/21 64.4/64.5 BMMNCs Standard care IA 6 mo 1.53 × 108 ①, ④, ⑤
Jain et al. [41] 25/23 54/58 BMSCs Standard care IM 3 mo Unclear ②
Benoit et al. [42] 34/14 65.7/72.5 BMSCs Standard care IM 6 mo Unclear ①, ②
Losordo et al. [43] 16/12 66.2/67.1 CD34+ Standard care IM 12 mo 1 × 106 1 × 105 ①, ④
Powell et al. [44] 48/24 67.3/69.2 BMSCs Standard care IM 12 mo 0.35–2.95 × 108 ①
Ozturk et al. [31] 20/20 71.9/70.8 PBMNCs Standard care IM 3 mo 2.48 × 107 ①, ②, ③, ④, ⑤, ⑥
Gupta et al. [29] 10/10 43/47.6 BMMSCs Standard care IM 6 mo 2 × 109 ①, ②, ④
Li et al. [26] 29/29 61/63 BMMNCs Standard care IM 6 mo 1 × 107 ①, ②
Mohammadzadeh et al. [32] 7/14 63.5/64.2 PBSCs Standard care IM 3 mo 2 × 107 ①, ②, ④
Szabo et al. [33] 10/10 60.6/63 PBSCs Standard care IM 24 mo 6.64 × 107 ②, ⑤
Raval et al. [9] 7/3 65/85 CD133+ Standard care IM 12 mo 5–40 × 107 ①
Teraa et al. [5] 81/79 69/65 BMMNCs Standard care IA 6 mo 5-6 × 108 ①, ②, ④, ⑤
Skóra et al. [45] 16/16 66.7/68.3 BMMNCs Pentoxifylline IM 3 mo 1.58 × 109 ①, ③, ④
Lu et al. [46] 20/21 67.2 PBSCs Standard care IM 6 mo Unclear ④, ⑤
Open in a new tab

Note: T = cell therapy; C = control group; IM = intramuscular; IA = intra-arterial; w = week; mo = month; PBMNCs = peripheral blood mononuclear cells; BMMNCs = bone marrow mononuclear cells; BMMSCs = bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells; BMSCs = bone marrow stem cells; PBSCs = peripheral blood stem cells; ① = amputation; ② = ulcer healing; ③ = angiographic; ④ = ABI; ⑤ = TcO2; ⑥ = pain-free walking distance; ⑦ = the blood flow of 10 toes.

3.3. Quality Assessment

The risks of biases of the included studies were evaluated by the Cochrane assessment tool, and these results were summarized in Table 2. Three of the studies were at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel and other biases according to the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Five studies reported methods of random sequence, and three studies reported the details of allocation concealment.

Table 2.

Cochrane risk of bias assessment.

Study Random sequence generation Allocation concealment Blinding of participants and personnel Blinding of outcome assessment Incomplete outcome data Selective reporting Other biases
Huang et al. [37] Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Low Unclear Low
Arai et al. [23] Unclear Unclear High Unclear Low Low Low
Barć et al. [24] Unclear Unclear High Unclear Low Low Low
Lu et al. [38] Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Low Low Low
Dash et al. [39] Unclear Unclear High Unclear Low Unclear Low
Shi et al. [40] Unclear Unclear High Unclear Low Low High
Procházka et al. [30] Low Low High Unclear Low Low Low
Wen and Huang [34] Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Low Low High
Lu [15] Unclear Unclear Low Unclear Low Unclear Low
Lu et al. [15] Low Unclear Low Low Low Low Low
Walter et al. [25] Unclear Unclear Low Unclear Low Unclear Low
Jain et al. [41] Low Low Low Unclear Low Unclear Low
Benoit et al. [42] Unclear Unclear Low Unclear Low Low Low
Losordo et al. [43] Unclear Unclear Low Low Low Unclear Low
Powell et al. [44] Unclear Unclear Low Unclear Low Unclear Low
Ozturk et al. [31] Unclear Unclear High Unclear Low Low Low
Gupta et al. [29] Low Low Low Low Low Low Low
Li et al. [26] Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Low Unclear Low
Mohammadzadeh et al. [32] Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Low Low Low
Szabo et al. [33] Unclear Unclear High Low Low Low Low
Raval et al. [9] Unclear Unclear Low Low Low Low Low
Teraa et al. [5] Low Unclear Low Low Low Low Low
Skóra et al. [45] Low Unclear Low Low Low Low Low
Lu et al. [46] Unclear Unclear High Low Low Low High
Open in a new tab

Note: low = low risk of bias; unclear = unclear risk of bias; high = high risk of bias.

3.4. Amputation Rate

Amputation rate was reported in 18 studies with a total of 512 patients treated with cell therapy and 525 patients in the control groups (Figure 2). Cell therapy was associated with a significant 41% reduction in the amputation rate, compared with control groups (RR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.46–0.76, P < 0.0001). Subgroup analyses indicated that peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) was more beneficial than bone marrow stem cell (BMSC) on the amputation rate (P = 0.03, I2 = 78.6%). Intramuscular of autologous stem cell transplantation was better than intra-arterial in reducing the amputation rate (P = 0.05, I2 = 75%). The mean follow-ups of the studies were divided into 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months, and the group of 3 months was a significant difference compared with 6 months and 12 months (P = 0.03). Subgroup analysis among high dose (109), medium dose (108), and low dose (107) showed that the group of low dose (107) had a significant effect in reducing the amputation rate.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of meta-analysis of the amputation rate in cell therapy and standard care for critical limb ischemia. (a) Subgroup analyses of bone marrow stem cells (BMSCs) versus peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs). (b) Subgroup analyses of intramuscular (IM) versus intra-arterial (IA). Squares indicate the risk ratio, and horizontal lines represent 95% confidence intervals.

3.5. Ulcer Healing and Pain-Free Walking Distance

Ulcer healing was included in the analysis of 18 studies (Figure 3). Results of analysis showed that cell therapy could significantly increase the probability of ulcer healing (RR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.45–2.06, P < 0.00001). Subgroup analyses indicated that the low dose (107) group of autologous stem cell transplantation was better than the other groups in ulcer healing (RR = 3.55, 95% CI = 1.95–6.48, P = 0.02). Pain-free walking distance significantly increased in cell therapy (MD = 144.84, 95% CI = 53.03–236.66, P = 0.002) (Figure 4).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of meta-analysis of ulcer healing in cell therapy and standard care for critical limb ischemia. (a) Subgroup analyses of bone marrow stem cells (BMSCs) versus peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs). (b) Subgroup analyses among high dose (109), medium dose (108), and low dose (107). Squares indicate the risk ratio, and horizontal lines represent 95% confidence intervals.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of meta-analysis of pain-free walking distance in cell therapy and standard care for critical limb ischemia. Squares indicate the weighted mean difference, and horizontal lines represent 95% confidence intervals.

3.6. Ankle-Brachial Index (ABI) and Transcutaneous Oxygen Tension (TcO2)

ABI with 15 studies was included in the analysis (Figure 5). Results indicated that cell therapy significantly improved the ABI by 0.13 (MD = 0.13, 95% CI = 0.11–0.15, P < 0.00001). Subgroup analyses indicated that bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BMMSCs) were superior to bone marrow mononuclear cells (BMMNCs), but there was no significant difference between bone marrow stem cells (BMSCs) and peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) in improving the ABI. The TcO2 with 8 studies was included in the analysis. Results indicated that cell therapy significantly improved TcO2 by 12.22 mmHg (MD = 12.22, 95% CI = 5.03–19.41, P = 0.0009). Subgroup analyses showed that there was no beneficial effect between BMSCs and PBSCs on the TcO2 (Figure 6).

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of meta-analysis with the ankle-brachial index (ABI) in cell therapy and standard care for critical limb ischemia. (a) Subgroup analyses of bone marrow stem cells (BMSCs) versus peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs). (b) Subgroup analyses among bone marrow mononuclear cells (BMMNCs) and bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BMMSCs). Squares indicate the weighted mean difference, and horizontal lines represent 95% confidence intervals.

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of meta-analysis with transcutaneous oxygen tension (TcO2) in cell therapy and standard care for critical limb ischemia. Subgroup analyses of bone marrow stem cells (BMSCs) versus peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs). Squares indicate the weighted mean difference, and horizontal lines represent 95% confidence intervals.

3.7. Angiogenesis and Blood Flow of 10 Toes

There were 8 studies included in the analysis with angiogenesis (Figure 7). Analysis by digital subtraction angiography revealed that autologous stem cell transplantation significantly improved the new vessel form (RR = 5.91, 95% CI = 2.49–14.02, P < 0.0001). The number of ischemic limbs with rich new collateral vessels in the transplant patients was significantly higher than that in the control group. Meanwhile, the blood flow of 10 toes significantly increased in cell therapy (SMD = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.48–1.18, P < 0.00001) (Figure 8).

Figure 7.

Figure 7

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of meta-analysis with angiogenesis in cell therapy and standard care for critical limb ischemia. Squares indicate the risk ratio, and horizontal lines represent 95% confidence intervals.

Figure 8.

Figure 8

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of meta-analysis with blood flow of 10 toes in cell therapy and standard care for critical limb ischemia. Squares indicate the standardized mean difference, and horizontal lines represent 95% confidence intervals.

3.8. Publication Bias and Heterogeneity

According to this meta-analysis, the significant symmetry showed that the ABI did not have obvious publication bias. Furthermore, the Egger's test funnel plot also indicated that there was no obvious publication bias in the ABI (P > 0.363, 95% CI = −0.57–1.45) (Figure 9). Sensitivity analysis was performed using a Galbraith plot for all the indicators. The results showed that there was no substantial change in the ABI and amputation rate, indicating that the results of meta-analysis were credible (Figure 10).

Figure 9.

Figure 9

Open in a new tab

Meta-analysis of publication bias of the ankle-brachial index (ABI) in cell therapy and standard care for critical limb ischemia. (a) Funnel plot of the ABI. (b) Egger's funnel plot of the ABI.

Figure 10.

Figure 10

Open in a new tab

Meta-analysis of sensitivity in cell therapy and standard care for critical limb ischemia. (a) Galbraith plot of the ankle-brachial index (ABI). (b) Galbraith plot of the amputation rate.

4. Discussion

4.1. Main Outcome

The registrations of stem cell clinical trials were retrieved on USA National Institutes of Health (NIH) clinical trial registration website (http://ClinicalTrials.gov). We performed the databases from building database to January 2018. There were 4715 clinical trial registration information for stem cells all over the world, and there were 2399 studies in America, 1027 studies in Europe, and 574 studies in China. We analyzed the disease of stem cell therapy and found that there were 1767 studies on neoplasms by histologic type, 1279 studies on immune system diseases, 607 studies on vascular diseases, and 513 studies on bone marrow diseases. The data showed that stem cell therapy has been used in various diseases, and stem cell therapy is approved in the globe. This meta-analysis included 23 RCTs with a total of 962 patients with CLI who were ineligible for surgical or percutaneous revascularization. Results indicated that autologous stem cell therapy had the potential effect to reduce the risk of amputation by 41% and significantly increased the probability effect of ulcer healing by 73% compared with the control group. ABI and TcO2 are the basic indicators of CLI, and the results indicated that cell therapy significantly improved the ABI by 0.13 and TcO2 by 12.22 mmHg. Moreover, the value of the increased ABI and TcO2 level were meaningful to confirm the truth of the improvements of amputation and wound healing rates. In addition, cell therapy could improve the endpoints of limb perfusion, and the blood flow of 10 toes significantly increased in cell therapy, compared with the control group. We speculated that the main reason for the increases of limb perfusion was angiogenesis. The studies reported that endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) derived from the bone marrow can facilitate microvasculature regeneration by paracrine or direct mechanisms in regions of blood vessel formation [21, 22]. Therefore, we made a statistics on the use of angiography in patients with CLI. There were 8 studies with RCTs in the analysis, revealing a significant effect of angiogenesis after autologous stem cell transplantation.

4.2. Subgroup Analysis

A study by Tateishi-Yuyama et al. [14] reported that transplantation of bone marrow stem cell therapy in patients with CLI significantly improved TcO2, ABI, and pain-free walking distance. Hereafter, many studies with RCTs had investigated the safety and feasibility of autologous stem cells of BMMNC therapy in CLI [5, 15, 23–26]. In recent years, a variety of cell types have been studied for treatment of PAD or CLI, including PBSCs, BMSCs, BMMNCs, PBMNCs, and BMMSCs. Our subgroup analyses indicated that PBSCs were more beneficial than BMSCs on the amputation rates. Dubsky et al. [13, 27] suggested that there was no significant difference in long-term prognosis between patients treated with BMMNCs and those treated with PBMNCs. The trials reported that transplantation of BMMSCs was safe and no serious adverse events by cell injection after the follow-up period [28, 29]. RCTs by Lu et al. [15] suggested that ulcer healing, ABI, TcO2, painless walking time, and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) in the BMMSC group were significantly higher than that in the BMMNC group in diabetic patients with CLI. The subgroup analyses indicated that BMMSCs showed beneficial effect than BMMNCs in improving the ABI. Therefore, BMMSCs could be more effective than BMMNCs in the treatment of CLI.

In RCTs of patients with CLI, the most common route of stem cell therapy administration was intramuscular. But, the potential route of intra-arterial was also injected therapy [5, 25, 30]. In order to find suitable and beneficial injection therapy, we conducted subgroup analysis. The results showed that the amputation rate in the intramuscular group was significantly lower than that in the intra-arterial group. The JUVENTAS trial is the largest RCT to investigate the effects of BMMNCs by intra-arterial [5]. The study [5] reported that repetitive intra-arterial of autologous BMMNCs was not effective in reducing the primary outcome of the amputation rate at 6 months, ABI, ulcer healing, and TcO2. Therefore, we suggest that stem cell administration is suitable and beneficial choice by intramuscular injection. In addition, we found that the low dose (107) group was a significant difference on the amputation rate compared with high dose (109) and medium dose (108) groups (P = 0.03), and cell therapy with low dose (107) significantly reduced the amputation rate. The cell therapy with low dose (107) showed a significant improvement in ulcer healing in patients with CLI [26, 31, 32]. However, a degree of heterogeneity may be generated in subgroup analysis, which could negatively impinge upon the assessment on efficacy of cell therapy. The generated heterogeneity could mask the true effect of cell therapy [10]. So we think that the results of subgroup analysis need the large clinical trials as evidence to support.

4.3. Safety

The studies of 23 RCTs showed that cell therapy was relatively safe, and the adverse events were mostly mild and transient. Teraa et al. [5] reported that there was a patient with inguinal hematoma due to intra-arterial injection, and the study of Szabo et al. [33] found that the cell therapy group had three adverse events during 3 months, but there was no evidence that the adverse events were attributed to stem cell transplantation. Li et al. [26] reported that there are three patients with fever in the cell therapy group, and they were cured after treatment. Lu et al. [15] showed that a few patients had a short-term response of mild pain 2 hours after cell transplantation, but no complications were detected, such as immune rejection and allergic reactions. Wen and Huang [34] reported that some patients felt uncomfortable of their limbs after intramuscular injection of PBSCs within 1 week, and the intramuscular injection site did not appear infected during 3-month follow-up. Similarly, many studies reported that stem cell transplantation was safe in long-term follow-up [28, 35]. The study by Molavi et al. [36] showed no adverse events during the 24-week follow-up period after cell delivery. No serious adverse events were found in the 23 studies included in this meta-analysis. Therefore, autologous stem cell transplantation is safe in the treatment of CLI.

In conclusion, this meta-analysis suggests that autologous stem cell therapy is safe and effective in CLI. Subgroup analysis indicates that cell types, cell dosage, route of administration, and follow-up time are the very important factors in stem cell therapy. However, we still lack high quality and large scale of RCTs to explore the influence of factors and the effect of autologous stem cell therapy in CLI.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province (2014A030313534) and Social Science and Technology Development Project of Dongguan (2014108101052).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' Contributions

Baocheng Xie and Daohua Xu designed the research. Baocheng Xie, Houlong Luo, Yusheng Zhang, Qinghui Wang, and Chenhui Zhou reviewed the literatures. Baocheng Xie, Houlong Luo, Yusheng Zhang, Qinghui Wang, and Chenhui Zhou collected the data. Baocheng Xie, Houlong Luo, and Yusheng Zhang analyzed the data. Baocheng Xie and Daohua Xu wrote the paper.

References

  • 1.Sprengers R. W., Teraa M., Moll F. L., Ardine de Wit G., van der Graaf Y., Verhaar M. C. Quality of life in patients with no-option critical limb ischemia underlines the need for new effective treatment. Journal of Vascular Surgery. 2010;52(4):843–849.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2010.04.057. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Cequier Á., Carrascosa C., Diez-Tejedor E., et al. Comments on the ESC guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of peripheral artery diseases. A report of the Task Force of the Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee of the Spanish Society of Cardiology. Revista Española de Cardiología (English Edition) 2012;65(2):119–124. doi: 10.1016/j.rec.2011.12.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Norgren L., Hiatt W. R., Dormandy J. A., Nehler M. R., Harris K. A., Fowkes F. G. R. Inter-society consensus for the management of peripheral arterial disease (TASC II) Journal of Vascular Surgery. 2007;45(1):S5–S67. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2006.12.037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Nehler M. R., Duval S., Diao L., et al. Epidemiology of peripheral arterial disease and critical limb ischemia in an insured national population. Journal of Vascular Surgery. 2014;60(3):686–695.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2014.03.290. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Teraa M., Sprengers R. W., Schutgens R. E. G., et al. Effect of repetitive intra-arterial infusion of bone marrow mononuclear cells in patients with no-option limb ischemia: the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled rejuvenating endothelial progenitor cells via transcutaneous intra-arterial supplementation (JUVENTAS) trial. Circulation. 2015;131(10):851–860. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.012913. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Patel S. D., Biasi L., Paraskevopoulos I., et al. Comparison of angioplasty and bypass surgery for critical limb ischaemia in patients with infrapopliteal peripheral artery disease. British Journal of Surgery. 2016;103(13):1815–1822. doi: 10.1002/bjs.10292. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Pave M., Benadiba L., Berger L., Gouicem D., Hendricks M., Plissonnier D. Below-the-knee angioplasty for critical limb ischemia: results of a series of 157 procedures and impact of the angiosome concept. Annals of Vascular Surgery. 2016;36:199–207. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2016.03.032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Becker F., Robert-Ebadi H., Ricco J. B., et al. Chapter I: definitions, epidemiology, clinical presentation and prognosis. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. 2011;42:S4–S12. doi: 10.1016/S1078-5884(11)60009-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Raval A. N., Schmuck E. G., Tefera G., et al. Bilateral administration of autologous CD133+ cells in ambulatory patients with refractory critical limb ischemia: lessons learned from a pilot randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Cytotherapy. 2014;16(12):1720–1732. doi: 10.1016/j.jcyt.2014.07.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Rigato M., Monami M., Fadini G. P. Autologous cell therapy for peripheral arterial disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, non-randomized, and non-controlled studies. Circulation Research. 2017;120(8):1326–1340. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.309045. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Compagna R., Amato B., Massa S., et al. Cell therapy in patients with critical limb ischemia. Stem Cells International. 2015;2015:13. doi: 10.1155/2015/931420.931420 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Lehalle B. Stem cells as a new treatment for peripheral artery disease: hype or hope? The point of view of a vascular surgeon. Bio-medical Materials and Engineering. 2015;25(1 Supplement):73–78. doi: 10.3233/BME-141229. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Dubsky M., Jirkovska A., Bem R., et al. Both autologous bone marrow mononuclear cell and peripheral blood progenitor cell therapies similarly improve ischaemia in patients with diabetic foot in comparison with control treatment. Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews. 2013;29(5):369–376. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.2399. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Tateishi-Yuyama E., Matsubara H., Murohara T., et al. Therapeutic angiogenesis for patients with limb ischaemia by autologous transplantation of bone-marrow cells: a pilot study and a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2002;360(9331):427–435. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)09670-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Lu D., Chen B., Liang Z., et al. Comparison of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells with bone marrow-derived mononuclear cells for treatment of diabetic critical limb ischemia and foot ulcer: a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice. 2011;92(1):26–36. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2010.12.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Hart C. A., Tsui J., Khanna A., Abraham D. J., Baker D. M. Stem cells of the lower limb: their role and potential in management of critical limb ischemia. Experimental Biology and Medicine. 2013;238(10):1118–1126. doi: 10.1177/1535370213503275. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Yang M., Sheng L., Zhang T. R., Li Q. Stem cell therapy for lower extremity diabetic ulcers: where do we stand? BioMed Research International. 2013;2013:8. doi: 10.1155/2013/462179.462179 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Peeters Weem S. M. O., Teraa M., de Borst G. J., Verhaar M. C., Moll F. L. Bone marrow derived cell therapy in critical limb ischemia: a meta-analysis of randomized placebo controlled trials. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. 2015;50(6):775–783. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2015.08.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Sun X., Ying J., Wang Y., et al. Meta-analysis on autologous stem cell transplantation in the treatment of limb ischemic. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine. 2015;8(6):8740–8748. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Moher D., Pham B.’., Jones A., et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? The Lancet. 1998;352(9128):609–613. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)01085-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Lawall H., Bramlage P., Amann B. Treatment of peripheral arterial disease using stem and progenitor cell therapy. Journal of Vascular Surgery. 2011;53(2):445–453. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2010.08.060. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Teraa M., Sprengers R. W., Westerweel P. E., et al. Bone marrow alterations and lower endothelial progenitor cell numbers in critical limb ischemia patients. PLoS One. 2013;8(1, article e55592) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0055592. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Arai M., Misao Y., Nagai H., et al. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor: a noninvasive regeneration therapy for treating atherosclerotic peripheral artery disease. Circulation Journal. 2006;70(9):1093–1098. doi: 10.1253/circj.70.1093. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Barć P., Skóra J., Pupka A., et al. Bone-marrow cells in therapy of critical limb ischemia of lower extremities-own experience. Acta Angiologica. 2006;12(4):155–166. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Walter D. H., Krankenberg H., Balzer J. O., et al. Intraarterial administration of bone marrow mononuclear cells in patients with critical limb ischemia: a randomized-start, placebo-controlled pilot trial (PROVASA) Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2011;4(1):26–37. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.110.958348. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Li M., Department of Cardiology Provincial Hospital affiliated to Shandong University, Shandong Province, China, Zhou H., et al. Autologous bone marrow mononuclear cells transplant in patients with critical leg ischemia: preliminary clinical results. Experimental and Clinical Transplantation. 2013;11(5):435–439. doi: 10.6002/ect.2012.0129. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Dubsky M., Jirkovska A., Bem R., et al. Comparison of two different methods of stem cell therapy of critical limb ischemia in patients with diabetic foot disease. Diabetes. 2010 [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Lasala G. P., Silva J. A., Gardner P. A., Minguell J. J. Combination stem cell therapy for the treatment of severe limb ischemia: safety and efficacy analysis. Angiology. 2010;61(6):551–6. doi: 10.1177/0003319710364213. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Gupta P. K., Chullikana A., Parakh R., et al. A double blind randomized placebo controlled phase I/II study assessing the safety and efficacy of allogeneic bone marrow derived mesenchymal stem cell in critical limb ischemia. Journal of Translational Medicine. 2013;11(1):p. 143. doi: 10.1186/1479-5876-11-143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Procházka V., Gumulec J., Jalůvka F., et al. Cell therapy, a new standard in management of chronic critical limb ischemia and foot ulcer. Cell Transplantation. 2010;19(11):1413–1424. doi: 10.3727/096368910X514170. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ozturk A., Kucukardali Y., Tangi F., et al. Therapeutical potential of autologous peripheral blood mononuclear cell transplantation in patients with type 2 diabetic critical limb ischemia. Journal of Diabetes and its Complications. 2012;26(1):29–33. doi: 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2011.11.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Mohammadzadeh L., Samedanifard S. H., Keshavarzi A., et al. Therapeutic outcomes of transplanting autologous granulocyte colony-stimulating factor-mobilised peripheral mononuclear cells in diabetic patients with critical limb ischaemia. Experimental and Clinical Endocrinology & Diabetes. 2013;121(1):48–53. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1311646. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Szabo G. V., Kovesd Z., Cserepes J., Daroczy J., Belkin M., Acsady G. Peripheral blood-derived autologous stem cell therapy for the treatment of patients with late-stage peripheral artery disease-results of the short- and long-term follow-up. Cytotherapy. 2013;15(10):1245–1252. doi: 10.1016/j.jcyt.2013.05.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Wen J. C., Huang P. P. Autologous peripheral blood mononuclear cells transplantation in treatment of 30 cases of critical limb ischemia: 3-year safety follow-up. Journal of Clinical Rehabilitative Tissue Engineering Research. 2010;14(45):8526–8530. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Ponemone V., Gupta S., Sethi D., et al. Safety and effectiveness of bone marrow cell concentrate in the treatment of chronic critical limb ischemia utilizing a rapid point-of-care system. Stem Cells International. 2017;2017:16. doi: 10.1155/2017/4137626.4137626 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Molavi B., Zafarghandi M. R., Aminizadeh E., et al. Safety and efficacy of repeated bone marrow mononuclear cell therapy in patients with critical limb ischemia in a pilot randomized controlled trial. Archives of Iranian Medicine. 2016;19(6):388–396. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Huang P., Li S., Han M., Xiao Z., Yang R., Han Z. C. Autologous transplantation of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor-mobilized peripheral blood mononuclear cells improves critical limb ischemia in diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(9):2155–2160. doi: 10.2337/diacare.28.9.2155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Debin L., Youzhao J., Ziwen L., Xiaoyan L., Zhonghui Z., Bing C. Autologous transplantation of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells on diabetic patients with lower limb ischemia. Journal of Medical Colleges of PLA. 2008;23(2):106–115. doi: 10.1016/s1000-1948(08)60031-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Dash N. R., Dash S. N., Routray P., Mohapatra S., Mohapatra P. C. Targeting nonhealing ulcers of lower extremity in human through autologous bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells. Rejuvenation Research. 2009;12(5):359–366. doi: 10.1089/rej.2009.0872. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Shi J., Yang Z. R., Hu X., Cao L. H., Zhang X. Y., Ma X. X. Clinical study of autologous bone marrow hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for treatment of diabetic lower limb vascular lesions. Chinese Journal of Postgraduates of Medicine. 2009;32(12):50–52. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Jain P., Perakath B., Jesudason M. R., Nayak S. The effect of autologous bone marrow-derived cells on healing chronic lower extremity wounds: results of a randomized controlled study. Ostomy/Wound Management. 2011;57(7):38–44. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Benoit E., O'Donnell T. F., Iafrati M. D., et al. The role of amputation as an outcome measure in cellular therapy for critical limb ischemia: implications for clinical trial design. Journal of Translational Medicine. 2011;9(1):p. 165. doi: 10.1186/1479-5876-9-165. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Losordo D. W., Kibbe M. R., Mendelsohn F., et al. A randomized, controlled pilot study of autologous CD34+ cell therapy for critical limb ischemia. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2012;5(6):821–830. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.112.968321. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Powell R. J., Marston W. A., Berceli S. A., et al. Cellular therapy with Ixmyelocel-T to treat critical limb ischemia: the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled RESTORE-CLI trial. Molecular Therapy. 2012;20(6):1280–6. doi: 10.1038/mt.2012.52. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Skóra J., Pupka A., Janczak D., et al. Combined autologous bone marrow mononuclear cell and gene therapy as the last resort for patients with critical limb ischemia. Archives of Medical Science. 2015;2(2):325–331. doi: 10.5114/aoms.2013.39935. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Lu A. J., Zhao J., Zhang S. P., Li D. M., Zhang L. J., Nan J. L. The clinical observation of 20 cases of diabetic vascular lesion of lower limbs treated with autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplant after bone marrow mobilization. Inner Mongolia Medical Journal. 2016;48(4):402–404. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Stem Cells International are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES