Rationale Transendocardial Stem Cell Injection (TESI) with mesenchymal stem cells improves remodeling in chronic ischemic cardiomyopathy, but the impact of the injection site remains unknown. Objective To address whether TESI exerts its effects at the site of injection only or also in remote areas, we hypothesized that segmental myocardial scar and segmental ejection fraction improve to a greater extent in injected than in non-injected segments. Methods and Results Biplane ventriculographic and endocardial tracings were recorded. TESI was guided to 10 sites in infarct-border zones. Sites were mapped according to the 17-myocardial segment model. As a result, 510 segments were analyzed in 30 patients before and 13-months after TESI. Segmental early enhancement defect (SEED, a measure of scar size) was reduced by TESI in both injected (−43.7±4.4%, n=95, p<0.01) and non-injected segments (−25.1±7.8%, n=148, p<0.001; between group comparison p<0.05). Conversely, segmental ejection fraction (SEF, a measure of contractility) improved in injected scar segments (19.9±3.3 to 26.3±3.5%, p=0.003) but not in non-injected scar segments (21.3±2.6 to 23.5±3.2%, p=0.20, between group comparison p<0.05). In the subgroup of scar segments with baseline SEF<20%, the SEF improvement was even greater in injected segments (12.1±1.2% to 19.9±2.7%, n=18, p=0.003) vs. non-injected segments (13.3±1.3% to 16.1±2.1%, n=15, p=0.05; between group comparison p<0.05). Conclusions These findings illustrate a dichotomy in regional responses to TESI. Although scar reduction was evident at the site of TESI and remotely, ventricular functional responses occurred preferentially at the sites of TESI. Furthermore, improvement was greatest when segmental left ventricular dysfunction was severe.

No abstract

The revisions in the updated AUC improve their clinical application by encompassing nearly all indications for SE. The limited correlation between AUC ratings and RBM determinations suggests a need for greater consistency. The large number of SE requested for inappropriate indications at our institution did not decrease with time or education.

No abstract

The revised 2009 AUC allow for near complete categorization of appropriateness in testing. Differences between institutions and provider types were noted and areas for improved utilization were identified.