Perfusion Scintigraphy in the Assessment of Autologous Cell Therapy in Diabetic Patients With Critical Limb Ischemia

Main Factors Predicting Nonresponders to Autologous Cell Therapy for Critical Limb Ischemia in Patients With Diabetic Foot

Autologous cell therapy (ACT) is a new treatment for patients with no-option critical limb ischemia (NO-CLI). We evaluated the factors involved in the nonresponse to ACT in patients with CLI and diabetic foot. Diabetic patients (n = 72) with NO-CLI treated using ACT in our foot clinic over a period of 8 years were divided into responders (n = 57) and nonresponders (n = 15). Nonresponder was defined as an insufficient increase in transcutaneous oxygen pressure by <5 mm Hg, 3 months after ACT. Patient demographics, diabetes duration and treatment, and comorbidities as well as a cellular response to ACT, limb-related factors, and the presence of inherited thrombotic disorders were compared between the 2 groups. The main independent predictors for an impaired response to ACT were heterozygote Leiden mutation (OR 10.5; 95% CI, 1.72-4) and homozygote methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR 677) mutation (OR 3.36; 95% CI, 1.0-14.3) in stepwise logistic regression. Univariate analysis showed that lower mean protein C levels (P = .041) were present in nonresponders compared with responders. In conclusion, the significant predictors of an impaired response to ACT in diabetic patients with NO-CLI were inherited thrombotic disorders.

Clinical and (31)P magnetic resonance spectroscopy characterization of patients with critical limb ischemia before and after autologous cell therapy

Autologous cell therapy (ACT) is a new treatment method for diabetic patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI) not eligible for standard revascularization. After intramuscular injection of bone marrow-derived mononuclear cells local arteriogenesis in the ischemic tissue occurs. Studies assessing visualization of this therapeutic vasculogenesis after ACT by novel imaging techniques are lacking. The aim of our study was to assess the effect of ACT on possible metabolic changes and perfusion of critically ischemic limbs using (31)P magnetic resonance spectroscopy ( (31)P MRS) and its possible correlation with changes of transcutaneous oxygen pressure (TcPO(2)). Twenty-one patients with diabetes and no-option CLI treated by ACT in our foot clinic over 8 years were included in the study. TcPO(2) as well as rest (phosphocreatine, adenosine triphosphate and inorganic phosphate) and dynamic (mitochondrial capacity and phosphocreatine recovery time) (31)P-MRS parameters were evaluated at baseline and 3 months after cell treatment. TcPO(2) increased significantly after 3 months compared with baseline (from 22.4±8.2 to 37.6±13.3 mm Hg, p=0.0002). Rest and dynamic (31)P MRS parameters were not significantly different after ACT in comparison with baseline values. Our study showed a significant increase of TcPO(2) on the dorsum of the foot after ACT. We did not observe any changes of rest or dynamic (31)P MRS parameters in the area of the proximal calf where the cell suspension has been injected into.

Autologous cells derived from different sources and administered using different regimens for 'no-option' critical lower limb ischaemia patients

BACKGROUND

Revascularisation is the gold standard therapy for patients with critical limb ischaemia (CLI). In over 30% of patients who are not suitable for or have failed previous revascularisation therapy (the 'no-option' CLI patients), limb amputation is eventually unavoidable. Preliminary studies have reported encouraging outcomes with autologous cell-based therapy for the treatment of CLI in these 'no-option' patients. However, studies comparing the angiogenic potency and clinical effects of autologous cells derived from different sources have yielded limited data. Data regarding cell doses and routes of administration are also limited.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of autologous cells derived from different sources, prepared using different protocols, administered at different doses, and delivered via different routes for the treatment of 'no-option' CLI patients.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), and trials registries (16 May 2018). Review authors searched PubMed until February 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 'no-option' CLI patients comparing a particular source or regimen of autologous cell-based therapy against another source or regimen of autologous cell-based therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed the eligibility and methodological quality of the trials. We extracted outcome data from each trial and pooled them for meta-analysis. We calculated effect estimates using a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI), or a mean difference (MD) with 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven RCTs with a total of 359 participants. These studies compared bone marrow-mononuclear cells (BM-MNCs) versus mobilised peripheral blood stem cells (mPBSCs), BM-MNCs versus bone marrow-mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSCs), high cell dose versus low cell dose, and intramuscular (IM) versus intra-arterial (IA) routes of cell implantation. We identified no other comparisons in these studies. We considered most studies to be at low risk of bias in random sequence generation, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting; at high risk of bias in blinding of patients and personnel; and at unclear risk of bias in allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessors. The quality of evidence was most often low to very low, with risk of bias, imprecision, and indirectness of outcomes the major downgrading factors.Three RCTs (100 participants) reported a total of nine deaths during the study follow-up period. These studies did not report deaths according to treatment group.Results show no clear difference in amputation rates between IM and IA routes (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.18; three RCTs, 95 participants; low-quality evidence). Single-study data show no clear difference in amputation rates between BM-MNC- and mPBSC-treated groups (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.45 to 5.24; 150 participants; low-quality evidence) and between high and low cell dose (RR 3.21, 95% CI 0.87 to 11.90; 16 participants; very low-quality evidence). The study comparing BM-MNCs versus BM-MSCs reported no amputations.Single-study data with low-quality evidence show similar numbers of participants with healing ulcers between BM-MNCs and mPBSCs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.83; 49 participants) and between IM and IA routes (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.76; 41 participants). In contrast, more participants appeared to have healing ulcers in the BM-MSC group than in the BM-MNC group (RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.92; one RCT, 22 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Researchers comparing high versus low cell doses did not report ulcer healing.Single-study data show similar numbers of participants with reduction in rest pain between BM-MNCs and mPBSCs (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; 104 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and between IM and IA routes (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.64; 32 participants; low-quality evidence). One study reported no clear difference in rest pain scores between BM-MNC and BM-MSC (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.61; 37 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Trials comparing high versus low cell doses did not report rest pain.Single-study data show no clear difference in the number of participants with increased ankle-brachial index (ABI; increase of > 0.1 from pretreatment), between BM-MNCs and mPBSCs (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.40; 104 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and between IM and IA routes (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.00; 35 participants; very low-quality evidence). In contrast, ABI scores appeared higher in BM-MSC versus BM-MNC groups (MD 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09; one RCT, 37 participants; low-quality evidence). ABI was not reported in the high versus low cell dose comparison.Similar numbers of participants had improved transcutaneous oxygen tension (TcO₂) with IM versus IA routes (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.72; two RCTs, 62 participants; very low-quality evidence). Single-study data with low-quality evidence show a higher TcO₂ reading in BM-MSC versus BM-MNC groups (MD 8.00, 95% CI 3.46 to 12.54; 37 participants) and in mPBSC- versus BM-MNC-treated groups (MD 1.70, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.99; 150 participants). TcO₂ was not reported in the high versus low cell dose comparison.Study authors reported no significant short-term adverse effects attributed to autologous cell implantation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Mostly low- and very low-quality evidence suggests no clear differences between different stem cell sources and different treatment regimens of autologous cell implantation for outcomes such as all-cause mortality, amputation rate, ulcer healing, and rest pain for 'no-option' CLI patients. Pooled analyses did not show a clear difference in clinical outcomes whether cells were administered via IM or IA routes. High-quality evidence is lacking; therefore the efficacy and long-term safety of autologous cells derived from different sources, prepared using different protocols, administered at different doses, and delivered via different routes for the treatment of 'no-option' CLI patients, remain to be confirmed.Future RCTs with larger numbers of participants are needed to determine the efficacy of cell-based therapy for CLI patients, along with the optimal cell source, phenotype, dose, and route of implantation. Longer follow-up is needed to confirm the durability of angiogenic potential and the long-term safety of cell-based therapy.