Premium
Intrapatient Comparison of an Intermittent and a Continous Flow Cell Separator for the Collection of Progenitor and Stem Cells from the Blood
Author(s) -
Beretta Fabrizio,
Bosch Sabine,
Castelli Damiano,
Cavalli Franco,
Ghielmini Michele
Publication year - 1998
Publication title -
vox sanguinis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.68
H-Index - 83
eISSN - 1423-0410
pISSN - 0042-9007
DOI - 10.1046/j.1423-0410.1998.7520149.x
Subject(s) - leukapheresis , clonogenic assay , cd34 , medicine , apheresis , progenitor cell , blood cell , stem cell , separator (oil production) , surgery , immunology , platelet , chemistry , cell , biology , microbiology and biotechnology , biochemistry , physics , thermodynamics
Background and Objectives: Continuous‐flow and intermittent‐flow blood cell separators (CFCS and IFCS) are both used to collect stem cells from the blood to rescue patients undergoing myeloablative treatment for cancer. Materials and Methods: We designed a study to compare the collection efficiency of the two systems. The continous‐flow Cobe Spectra and the intermittent‐flow Haemonetics MCS‐3P were used to collect cells on consecutive days from 9 patients mobilised with G‐CSF with or without chemotherapy. Blood obtained before leukapheresis and the leukapheresis product were analysed for their content of red and white cells, platelets, CD34‐positive cells, GM‐CFC, CFC‐E, and BFU‐E. An extraction ratio was calculated. Results: We found that the CFCS extracted about 4 times more mononuclear cells per unit time, 3 times more CD34‐positive, and 4 times more clonogenic cells than the IFCS. The subject acceptability of the two systems was similar. Conclusion: The CFCS is a more efficient system for stem cell collection. IFCS requires a longer harvesting time for the same result.