Background: While heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remains a major global health burden, mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy has emerged as a promising intervention designed to improve cardiac function and reduce morbidity among patients unresponsive to conventional treatments. MSC therapy has shown promise by targeting left ventricular pressure and improving wall thickness, contributing to reductions in HF-related morbidity and mortality rates. This systematic review and meta-analysis bridges a gap in current research through a focused examination of the most recent clinical trials to cohesively assess MSC therapy in HFrEF patients. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials published from 2018 onwards, which were obtained from multiple databases such as PUBMED, Scopus, EBSCO Medline, EBSCO CINAHL Science Direct, and the Cochrane Library. This review investigates the efficacy and safety outcomes of MSC therapy in patients above 18 years of age with a known diagnosis of heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The primary outcome was the change in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Secondary outcomes encompassed several efficacy outcomes, such as Global Circumferential strain (GCS), the 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), Quality of Life (QoL), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). A PRISMA flow diagram was constructed to illustrate the identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion of studies at each stage of the review process. Results: A total of 330 studies were initially identified, but only 12 met the inclusion criteria. MSC therapy resulted in a small, non-significant improvement in LVEF (Hedges’ g = 0.096, p = 0.18) with low heterogeneity (I² = 0.5%). Only QoL showed significant improvement (Hedges’ g = −0.518, p = 0.01). No significant changes in other efficacy outcomes were observed. The therapy was not associated with an increased risk of MACE. Conclusion: While MSC therapy was safe and improved QoL for HFrEF patients, it did not significantly improve LVEF or other efficacy outcomes. Further large-scale, standardized trials are required to better understand the potential role of MSCs in heart failure (HF) therapy.

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to global and national rapid health system changes to treat the affected patients and prevent the spread of the virus. The social distancing, redirecting resources, and nationwide lockdown led to the cancellation of non-urgent hospital visits and interruption of continuity of care for patients with chronic cardiac conditions such as heart failure (HF). This consensus document addresses the domains of health care delivery that are affected by the pandemic. It explains the current situation of health care delivery to heart failure patients and further recommendation on how to overcome this. Thus, maintaining quality and continuity of care to the HF population.

The Saudi Patient Safety Center cross-sectional survey, based on the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture 2.0, was conducted from September 3 to October 28, 2023 to summarize the patient safety culture profile in Eastern Health Cluster hospitals and to identify benchmark, hospital-size, and staff-category patterns relevant for improvement. Ten composites were computed as percent-positive scores and descriptively compared with Saudi and US benchmarks. Of the 13,507 eligible staff, 10,853 responded (80%), and 83% reported having direct contact with patients. The mean percent-positive score for all was 63.29%. Teamwork (74.49%) and organizational learning–continuous improvement (71.76%) had the highest scores. The lowest scores were for Staffing and Work Pace (43.93%), Response to Error (51.09%), and Hospital Management Support for Patient Safety (57.73%). All composites had scores below Saudi benchmarks and smaller hospitals (≤200 beds) had higher scores than larger hospitals (>200 beds). Reporting Patient Safety Events had a score of 66.95%, with 53% of respondents reporting no patient safety events in the past 12 months, suggesting that voluntary reporting may not reflect the true picture of patient safety. The key areas for improvement are staffing, work pace, nonpunitive approach to error, and leadership support. Nurse-to-patient staffing and acuity review should be combined with just culture practices, closed-loop feedback, and active event detection via trigger tools and chart review.