AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightResults: 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.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
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.