Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Acute coronary syndromes
Cardiovascular events and re-stenosis following administration of G-CSF in acute myocardial infarction: systematic review and meta-analysis
  1. H Ince1,
  2. M Valgimigli2,
  3. M Petzsch1,
  4. J Suarez de Lezo4,
  5. F Kuethe5,
  6. S Dunkelmann1,
  7. G Biondi-Zoccai3,
  8. C A Nienaber1
  1. 1
    Department of Medicine, Divisions of Cardiology at the University Hospital Rostock, Rostock School of Medicine, Rostock, Germany
  2. 2
    University of Ferrara Cardiovascular Institute in Ferrara, Italy
  3. 3
    Division of Cardiology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
  4. 4
    University Hospital Reina Sofía, Spain
  5. 5
    Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Jena, Germany
  1. Dr Christoph A Nienaber, Division of Cardiology, University Hospital Rostock, Rostock School of Medicine, Ernst-Heydemann-Strasse 6, 18057 Rostock, Germany; christoph.nienaber{at}


Background: Because of the recently published results of the MAGIC study there is confusion as to whether administration of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) after acute myocardial infarction (MI) should be regarded as a potentially harmful treatment. This meta-analysis of appropriate clinical studies is intended to show the impact of G-CSF given after MI on aggravated incidence of coronary re-stenosis or progression of coronary lesions.

Methods: We used a fixed effects model based on the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results from the different trials. These studies provided the basis for the current analysis comprising 106 patients of whom 62 were subjected to G-CSF treatment.

Results: Minimum lumen diameter (MLD) measured immediately after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was similar in both groups with a diameter stenosis of 12.3% (SD 9.5%) in the G-CSF group and 10.3% (8.5%) in the control group (p = 0.32). At follow-up, both MLD and percentage stenosis were not different between G-CSF-treated and control patients. Subsequently, averaged late lumen loss revealed similar results and no differences between groups (p = 0.11), and neither stent thrombosis nor re-infarction in either group.

Conclusions: The current meta-analysis of clinical reports fails to justify an elevated risk for coronary re-stenosis after PCI in acute MI or adverse events following G-CSF in the setting of MI when used after state of the art treatment in carefully conducted clinical protocols.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Competing interests: None declared.