Collection of umbilical cord blood for banking: collection rate and factors influencing collection

Umbilical Cord Blood Banking: An Update For Childbirth Educators

To make an informed decision on umbilical cord blood banking or donation during birth, families need evidence-based, quality information on this alternative. Cord blood banking often refers to private banking, while donation generally refers to public banking. Research has shown that expectant parents do not have sufficient understanding of the cord blood banking process, umbilical cord stem cell transplants, uses of these cells, or options. Research also shows that birthing families desire that information to come from a reliable healthcare provider resource, such as a childbirth educator. Therefore, this article will offer information for use by childbirth educators, nurses, or other birth workers to increase awareness and knowledge on the topic of umbilical cord blood banking and donation.

Feasibility of Umbilical Cord Blood Collection in Neonates at Risk of Brain Damage-A Step Toward Autologous Cell Therapy for a High-risk Population

Evidence for umbilical cord blood (UCB) cell therapies as a potential intervention for neurological diseases is emerging. To date, most existing trials worked with allogenic cells, as the collection of autologous UCB from high-risk patients is challenging. In obstetric emergencies the collection cannot be planned. In preterm infants, late cord clamping and anatomic conditions may reduce the availability. The aim of the present study was to assess the feasibility of UCB collection in neonates at increased risk of brain damage. Infants from four high-risk groups were included: newborns with perinatal hypoxemia, gestational age (GA) ≤30 + 0 weeks and/or birthweight <1,500 g, intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), or monochorionic twins with twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS). Feasibility of collection, quantity and quality of obtained UCB [total nucleated cell count (TNC), volume, sterility, and cell viability], and neonatal outcome were assessed. UCB collection was successful in 141 of 177 enrolled patients (hypoxemia n = 10; GA ≤30 + 0 weeks n = 54; IUGR n = 71; TTTS n = 6). Twenty-six cases were missed. The amount of missed cases per month declined over the time. Volume of collected UCB ranged widely (median: 24.5 ml, range: 5.0–102 ml) and contained a median of 0.77 × 10⁸ TNC (range: 0.01–13.0 × 10⁸). TNC and UCB volume correlated significantly with GA. A total of 10.7% (19/177) of included neonates developed brain lesions. To conclude, collection of UCB in neonates at high risk of brain damage is feasible with a multidisciplinary approach and intensive training. High prevalence of brain damage makes UCB collection worthwhile. Collected autologous UCB from mature neonates harbors a sufficient cell count for potential therapy. However, quality and quantity of obtained UCB are critical for potential therapy in preterm infants. Therefore, for extremely preterm infants alternative cell sources such as UCB tissue should be investigated for autologous treatment options because of the low yield of UCB.

Serum eye drops for the treatment of ocular surface diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of blood-derived eye drops for topical treatment of ocular surface diseases has progressively increased in recent years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To evaluate the use of serum eye drops in ocular surface disorders, we performed a systematic search of the literature.

RESULTS

In this systematic review, we included 19 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of serum eye drops in 729 patients compared to controls. For the quantitative synthesis, we included only 10 RCTs conducted in patients with dry eye syndrome comparing autologous serum to artificial tears. At 2-6 weeks, no clear between-group differences in Schirmer test (MD 1.05; 95% CI: -0.17-2.26) and in fluorescein staining (MD -0.61; 95% CI: -1.50-0.28) were found (very low-quality evidence, down-graded for inconsistency, serious risk of biases, and serious imprecision). Slightly higher increase in tear film break-up time (TBUT) scores in autologous serum compared to control (MD 2.68; 95% CI: 1.33-4.03), and greater decrease in ocular surface disease index (OSDI) in autologous serum compared to control (MD -11.17; 95% CI: -16.58 - -5.77) were found (low quality evidence, down-graded for serious risk of bias, and for inconsistency). For the Schirmer test, fluorescein staining and TBUT, data were also available at additional follow-up timing (2-12 months): no clear between-group differences were found, and the quality of the evidence was graded as low/very-low.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with dry eye syndrome, it is unclear whether or not the use of autologous serum compared to artificial tears increases Schirmer test and fluorescein staining scores at short-term and medium-/long-term follow up. Some benefit at short-term follow up for the outcome of TBUT and OSDI was observed, but the quality of the evidence was low.

The use of platelet-rich plasma in oral surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the benefit of platelet rich plasma (PRP) in oral surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a systematic search of the literature. The GRADE system was used to assess the certainty of the body of evidence.

RESULTS

We found 21 randomised controlled trials that met our inclusion criteria: 12 studies included patients with periodontal defects, five studies focused on healing of extraction sockets, three studies on sinus lift augmentation, and one study on periapical osseous defects. However, for the quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis), we evaluated "periodontal defects" studies only, since for other clinical contexts the number of studies were too low and the procedural heterogeneity was too high to allow pooling of data. PRP-containing regimens were compared to non-PRP-containing regimens. Primary outcomes for the evaluation of periodontal defects were probing depths, clinical attachment level, gingival recession, and radiographic bone defect. It is not usually clear whether or not the use of PRP compared to controls affects "probing depth" at long-term follow up; the between group differences were small and unlikely to be of clinical importance (i.e., very low quality of evidence). For the other outcomes analysed ("clinical attachment levels", "gingival recession", "bony defect"), we observed a very slight marginal clinical benefit of PRP compared to controls. The available evidence for these comparisons was rated as low quality as most of the studies selected showed inconsistency, imprecision, and risk of bias.

DISCUSSION

Evidence from a comparison between the use in oral surgery of PRP-containing regimens compared to other regimens not-containing PRP was of low quality. The results of the meta-analysis, limited to studies in patients with periodontal defects, document that PRP was slightly more effective compared to controls not-containing PRP.