I will add a few other reasons, though I suspect @Cato will take...

I will add a few other reasons, though I suspect @Cato will take no notice, as I have raised these before.
1. Before a trial can start in any hospital, the trial must be approved by the ethics committee of EACH HOSPITAL. This is a time consuming process hence the delay in some hospitals starting the trial.
2. Staff must be trained so they understand the trial process and do not miss any steps, otherwise that patient does not count. At the beginning this process is slow, but as staff become accustomed to the process, it becomes quicker. Hence the J curve of enrollments that many have talked about.
3. Staff running the trial may not be supernumerary therefore when things are hectic, trials go on the backburner as staff are busy stopping people from dying. If you are faced with the choice of ringing a family member for permission to take part in the trial or drawing blood for tests, and resuscitating a patient in cardiac arrest, which do you think they will choose?
3. There is a 1 month follow-up meaning they recruited more than 90 by July.
It's not just a case of pointing out possible candidates, and injecting the MSCs. There are heaps of steps in between. If these are not completed in the 72 hour window, the patient no longer qualifies for the trial. It's not an easy process. It is bloody hard hence that article we saw of a doctor commenting how hard his staff had worked and how proud he was that they managed to enroll their allotted 30 patients. Supplying the MSCs is the easy bit. All the other steps are likely to be the cause of any holdup, though I don't believe there is any evidence of a holdup.
Just because the first readout has take three months does not mean that the next or the one after that will take as long. In fact I believe they will not be far behind each other.