BACKGROUND: Volume reduction is a widely used procedure in umbilical cord blood banking. It concentrates progenitor cells by reducing plasma and red blood cells, thereby optimising the use of storage space. Sepax and AXP are automated systems specifically developed for umbilical cord blood processing. These systems basically consist of a bag processing set into which cord blood is transferred and a device that automatically separates the different components during centrifugation. METHODS: The aim of this study was to analyse and compare cell recovery of umbilical cord blood units processed with Sepax and AXP at Valencia Cord Blood Bank. Cell counts were performed before and after volume reduction with AXP and Sepax. RESULTS: When analysing all the data (n =1,000 for AXP and n= 670 for Sepax), the percentages of total nucleated cell recovery and red blood cell depletion were 76.76 ± 7.51% and 88.28 ± 5.62%, respectively, for AXP and 78.81 ± 7.25% and 88.32 ± 7.94%, respectively, for Sepax (P <0.005 for both variables). CD34(+) cell recovery and viability in umbilical cord blood units were similar with both devices. Mononuclear cell recovery was significantly higher when the Sepax system was used. DISCUSSION: Both the Sepax and AXP automated systems achieve acceptable total nucleated cell recovery and good CD34(+) cell recovery after volume reduction of umbilical cord blood units and maintain cell viability. It should be noted that total nucleated cell recovery is significantly better with the Sepax system. Both systems deplete red blood cells efficiently, especially AXP which works without hydroxyethyl starch.
BACKGROUND: Volume reduction is a widely used procedure in umbilical cord blood banking. It concentrates progenitor cells by reducing plasma and red blood cells, thereby optimising the use of storage space. Sepax and AXP are automated systems specifically developed for umbilical cord blood processing. These systems basically consist of a bag processing set into which cord blood is transferred and a device that automatically separates the different components during centrifugation. METHODS: The aim of this study was to analyse and compare cell recovery of umbilical cord blood units processed with Sepax and AXP at Valencia Cord Blood Bank. Cell counts were performed before and after volume reduction with AXP and Sepax. RESULTS: When analysing all the data (n =1,000 for AXP and n= 670 for Sepax), the percentages of total nucleated cell recovery and red blood cell depletion were 76.76 ± 7.51% and 88.28 ± 5.62%, respectively, for AXP and 78.81 ± 7.25% and 88.32 ± 7.94%, respectively, for Sepax (P <0.005 for both variables). CD34(+) cell recovery and viability in umbilical cord blood units were similar with both devices. Mononuclear cell recovery was significantly higher when the Sepax system was used. DISCUSSION: Both the Sepax and AXP automated systems achieve acceptable total nucleated cell recovery and good CD34(+) cell recovery after volume reduction of umbilical cord blood units and maintain cell viability. It should be noted that total nucleated cell recovery is significantly better with the Sepax system. Both systems deplete red blood cells efficiently, especially AXP which works without hydroxyethyl starch.
Authors: Jürgen Zingsem; Erwin Strasser; Volker Weisbach; Robert Zimmermann; Jürgen Ringwald; Tamme Goecke; Matthias Wilhelm Beckmann; Reinhold Eckstein Journal: Transfusion Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: A C Papassavas; V Gioka; T Chatzistamatiou; T Kokkinos; I Anagnostakis; G Gecka; I Redoukas; G Paterakis; C Stavropoulos-Giokas Journal: Int J Lab Hematol Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 2.877
Authors: A Brand; P Rebulla; C P Engelfriet; H W Reesink; Y Beguin; E Baudoux; G Kögler; M Ebrahimi; G Grazzini; A Nanni Costa; A Bosi; N Sacchi; L Lombardini; S Pupella; L Lecchi; E D Calderón Garcidueñas; J M van Beckhoven; H J C de Wit; W E Fibbe; E B Zhiburt; T Bart; M Beksaç; C Navarrete; F Regan Journal: Vox Sang Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 2.144
Authors: P Rubinstein; L Dobrila; R E Rosenfield; J W Adamson; G Migliaccio; A R Migliaccio; P E Taylor; C E Stevens Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 1995-10-24 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: V Lapierre; N Pellegrini; I Bardey; C Malugani; P Saas; F Garnache; E Racadot; F Schillinger; S Maddens Journal: Cytotherapy Date: 2007 Impact factor: 5.414
Authors: John Patterson; Cally H Moore; Emily Palser; Jason C Hearn; Daniela Dumitru; Holli A Harper; Ivan N Rich Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2015-03-18 Impact factor: 5.531
Authors: A R Caseiro; G Ivanova; S S Pedrosa; M V Branquinho; P Georgieva; P P Barbosa; J D Santos; R Magalhães; P Teixeira; T Pereira; A C Maurício Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-10-10 Impact factor: 3.240