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.

METHODS: Hepatotoxicity was induced in adult female Wistar rats using carbon tetrachloride (CCl4 ). Thirty-six rats were randomly divided into six groups with six rats in each group: Group 1 (normal control group), Group 2 (received only CCl 4 ), Group 3 (CCl 4 +low dose BM-MSCs), Group 4 (CCl 4 +high dose BM-MSCs), Group 5 (CCl 4  + silymarin), Group 6 (CCl 4 +silymarin+high dose BM-MSCs). Thirty days after the treatment, blood samples were collected for hepatocyte growth factor estimation. The rats were then killed, bone marrow was extracted for chromosomal aberration assay. Liver tissue was processed for evaluating the DNA fragmentation assay, histopathology, and scanning electron microscopy study.

METHODS: Ten symptomatic patients with DCM and refractory cardiac function, despite maximum medical therapy, were selected. Five had ischemic DCM deemed unlikely to benefit from revascularization alone and underwent bypass operations with concurrent intramyocardial MSC injection (group A). Two patients had previous revascularization and three had non-ischemic DCM and received intracoronary MSC injection (group B).

RESULTS: Group A and B patients received 0.5-1.0 × 10(6) and 2.0-3.0 × 10(6) MSC/kg body weight, respectively. All patients remained alive at 1 year. There were significant improvements from baseline to 6 and 12 months in left ventricular ejection fraction and other left ventricular parameters. Scar reduction was noted in six patients by 12 months.

METHODS: Medial femoral condyle defect was created in both knees of twenty-four mature New Zealand white rabbits, and the animals were divided into four groups containing six animals each. After 3 weeks, the right knees were transplanted with PVA-chitosan-MSC, PVA-chitosan scaffold alone, alginate-MSC construct or alginate alone. The left knee was kept as untreated control. Animals were killed at the end of 6 months after transplantation, and the cartilage repair was assessed through Brittberg morphological score, histological grading by O'Driscoll score and quantitative glycosaminoglycan analysis.

RESULTS: Morphological and histological analyses showed significant (p < 0.05) tissue repair when treated with PVA-chitosan-MSC or alginate MSC as compared to the scaffold only and untreated control. In addition, safranin O staining and the glycosaminoglycan (GAG) content were significantly higher (p < 0.05) in MSC treatment groups than in scaffold-only or untreated control group. No significant difference was observed between the PVA-chitosan-MSC- and alginate-MSC-treated groups.