Manual Versus Automated Volume Reduction of Cord Blood

Pınar Yurdakul Mesutoğlu; Emine Begüm Gencer Öncül; Hasan Yalım Akın; Meral Beksaç

doi:10.54614/eurjther.2021.0029

Authors

Pınar Yurdakul Mesutoğlu Department of Clinical Microbiology, İstinye University, Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0043-7187
Emine Begüm Gencer Öncül Ankara University Faculty of Medicine, Cord Blood Bank, Ankara, Turkey https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9653-1508
Hasan Yalım Akın Ankara University Faculty of Medicine, Cord Blood Bank, Ankara, Turkey https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2461-9479
Meral Beksaç Department of Hematology, Ankara University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1797-8657

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54614/eurjther.2021.0029

Keywords:

Hematopoietic Stem cells, cord blood, blood banking

Abstract

Objectives: All cord blood banks all over the world follow a common procedure, concentrating progenitor cells by volume reduction, with the main purpose of optimizing the use of storage space. The main objective of this study was to compare CD34 and total nucleated cell recovery rates and red blood cell depletion efficiencies following cord blood processing using automated Sepax or manual CellEffic cord blood processing systems.

Methods: Nine cord blood units with high volumes were divided into 2 equal fractions and processed with CellEffic cord blood and Sepax. Total nucleated cell, mononuclear cells, CD34+, red blood cell and total nucleated cell viability, and clonogenic assays were performed, and recovery rates were calculated on pre- and post-process cord blood units and after freeze/thaw process. In the comparison group, post-thaw differential cell counting was also performed.

Results: Our results showed that post-process total nucleated cell viability with CellEffic cord blood was slightly higher than Sepax, whereas Sepax post-process total nucleated cell/ mononuclear cell values were superior to CellEffic cord blood. Postthaw red blood cell depletion was better for CellEffic cord blood. Post-thaw Sepax colony-forming unit counts were higher than CellEffic cord blood. In addition, CD45+CD71+ cells were lower, whereas CD45+CD34+CD38− cells were higher for the CellEffic cord blood system.

Conclusion: Despite the fact that there is a need for well-trained personnel for processing cord blood units with CellEffic cord blood, it may be an attractive alternative to Sepax system for cord blood processing, particularly for cord blood units with low volumes, at banks with low budget where the cord blood turnover rates are relatively low.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Munoz J, Shah N, Rezvani K, et al. Concise review: umbilical cord blood transplantation: past, present, and future. Stem Cells Transl Med. 2014;3(12):1435-1443.

Querol S, Samarkanova D. Rapid review: next generation of cord blood banks; transplantation and beyond. Transfusion. 2019;59(10): 3048-3050.

Mayani H, Wagner JE, Broxmeyer HE. Cord blood research, banking, and transplantation: achievements, challenges, and perspectives. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2020;55(1):48-61

Bhandari R, Lindley A, Bhatla D, et al. Awareness of cord blood collection and the impact on banking. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2017;64(7).

Little AM. HLA antibodies in haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. HLA. 2019;94(suppl 2):21-24.

Pasha R, Halpenny M, Pineault N. Overcoming the deceptively low viability of CD45(+) cells in thawed cord blood unit segments. Vox Sang. 2019;114(8):876-883.

Armitage S. Cord blood banking standards: autologous Versus altruistic. Front Med (Lausanne). 2015;2:94.

Murphy A, McKenna D, McCullough J. Cord blood banking and quality issues. Transfusion. 2016;56(3):645-652.

Wall DA. Issues in the quality of umbilical cord blood stem cells for transplantation: challenges in cord blood banking quality management. Transfusion. 2005;45(6):826-828.

Basford C, Forraz N, Habibollah S, Hanger K, McGuckin C. The cord blood separation league table: a comparison of the major clinical grade harvesting techniques for cord blood stem cells. Int J Stem Cells. 2010;3(1):32-45.

Souri M, Nikougoftar Zarif M, Rasouli M, et al. Comparison of human umbilical cord blood processing with or without hydroxyethyl starch. Transfusion. 2017;57(11):2758-2766.

Solves P, Planelles D, Mirabet V, Blanquer A, Carbonell-Uberos F. Qualitative and quantitative cell recovery in umbilical cord blood processed by two automated devices in routine cord blood banking: a comparative study. Blood Transfus. 2013;11(3):405-411.

Kim KM, Huh JY, Kim JJ, Kang MS. Quality comparison of umbilical cord blood cryopreserved with conventional versus automated systems. Cryobiology. 2017;78:65-69.

Sowemimo-Coker SO, Andrade F, Kim A, Pesci S. A simple filtration system for red blood cell depletion and volume reduction in routine processing of human umbilical cord blood. Vox Sang. 2009;96(2):138-145.

Sowemimo-Coker SO. Evaluation of an experimental filter designed for improving the quality of red blood cells (RBCs) during storage by simultaneously removing white blood cells and immunomodulatory and improving RBC viscoelasticity and Band 3 proteins. Transfusion. 2014;54(3):592-601.

Shima T, Forraz N, Sato N, et al. A novel filtration method for cord blood processing using a polyester fabric filter. Int J Lab Hematol. 2013;35(4):436-446.

Sato N, Fricke C, McGuckin C, et al. Cord blood processing by a novel filtration system. Cell Prolif. 2015;48(6):671-681.

Gençer EB, Yurdakul P, Dalva K, Beksaç M. Flow cytometric aldehyde dehydrogenase assay enables a fast and accurate human umbilical cord blood hematopoietic stem cell assessment. Turk J Haematol. 2017;34(4):314-320.

Shearer WT, Lubin BH, Cairo MS, Notarangelo LD, Section on Hematology/Oncology, Section on Allergy and Immunology. Cord blood banking for potential future transplantation. Pediatrics. 2017;140(5).

Allan D, Petraszko T, Elmoazzen H, Smith S. A review of factors influencing the banking of collected umbilical cord blood units. Stem Cells Int. 2013;2013:463031.

Juric MK, Ghimire S, Ogonek J, et al. Milestones of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation - From first human studies to current developments. Front Immunol. 2016;7:470.

Jaing TH, Chen SH, Wen YC, Chang TY, Yang YC, Tsay PK. Effects of cryopreservation duration on the outcome of single-unit cord blood transplantation. Cell Transplant. 2018;27(3):515-519.

Lee YH, Koh H, Nam E, Kim YJ. Cryopreserved cord blood mononuclear cells in DMSO are healthy for at least 6 hours after thawing. Transfus Apher Sci. 2020;59(1):102603.

Kaur I, Zulovich JM, Gonzalez M, et al. Comparison of two methodologies for the enrichment of mononuclear cells from thawed cord blood products: the automated Sepax system versus the manual Ficoll method. Cytotherapy. 2017;19(3):433-439.

Nikiforow S, Li S, Snow K, et al. Lack of impact of umbilical cord blood unit processing techniques on clinical outcomes in adult double cord blood transplant recipients. Cytotherapy. 2017;19(2):272-284.

Barker JN, Byam C, Scaradavou A. How I treat: the selection and acquisition of unrelated cord blood grafts. Blood. 2011;117(8):2332-2339.

NetCord-FACT. International Standards for Cord Blood Collection, Banking, and Release for Administration. Omaha, Nebraska, USA. 7th ed. Foundation for the Accreditation of Cellular Therapy (FACT); 2020.

Lee HR, Shin S, Yoon JH, Roh EY, Kim BJ, Song EY. Aldehyde dehydrogenase- bright cells correlated with the colony-forming unitgranu locyt e-mac ropha ge assay of thawed cord blood units. Transfusion. 2014;54(7):1871-1875.

Yun HD, Varma A, Hussain MJ, Nathan S, Brunstein C. Clinical relevance of immunobiology in umbilical cord blood transplantation. J Clin Med. 2019;8(11).

Vanegas D, Galindo CC, Páez-Gutiérrez IA, et al. Human leukocyte antigen and red blood cells impact umbilical cord blood CD34(+) cell viability after thawing. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(19).