A Comparative Quantification in Cellularity of Bone Marrow Aspirated with two New Harvesting Devices, and The Non-equivalent Difference Between A Centrifugated Bone Marrow Concentrate And A Bone Marrow Aspirate As Biological Injectates, Using A Bi-Lateral Patient Model

P. Everts, J. Ferrell, C. B. Mahoney, G. Flanagan, M. Roman, Rowan V. Paul, Natalie Stephens, K. Mautner
{"title":"A Comparative Quantification in Cellularity of Bone Marrow Aspirated with two New Harvesting Devices, and The Non-equivalent Difference Between A Centrifugated Bone Marrow Concentrate And A Bone Marrow Aspirate As Biological Injectates, Using A Bi-Lateral Patient Model","authors":"P. Everts, J. Ferrell, C. B. Mahoney, G. Flanagan, M. Roman, Rowan V. Paul, Natalie Stephens, K. Mautner","doi":"10.35248/2157-7633/20.10.461","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The first aim of this study was to examine the cellularity and quality of autologous bone marrow aspirates harvested with two novel FDA-cleared devices, namely the Aspire™ bone marrow aspiration system (AS-BMAS) and the Marrow Cellution bone marrow aspiration device (MC-BMAD). Compared to traditional bone marrow harvesting needle systems, both these devices have a closed distal tip, avoiding preferential marrow collection (peripheral blood aspiration) from deeper cavity regions, whereas the side holes facilitate more horizontal marrow extraction. In all patients, a similar harvesting technique was used. The second aim was to demonstrate the effectiveness of mechanical centrifugation of a large volume of extracted bone marrow to produce a bone marrow concentrate (BMC). Finally, we directly compared bone marrow constituents aspirated with MC-BMAD with a BMC, generated by centrifugation of bone marrow harvested using the AS-BMAS. A bi-lateral patient model was used for all comparisons. All cellular analyses included the measurement of Colony-Forming Units-fibroblasts (CFU/f) levels, CD34+cells/ml, Total Nucleated Cells (TNCs)/ml, platelets/ml, and Red Blood Cells (RBCs)/ml in a single, FDA-approved laboratory, compliant with Good Manufacturing Practice regulations. A total of 12 patients consented to the study. In the direct BMA comparison, the AS-BMAS bone marrow yielded significantly higher CFU/f counts and TNC concentrations than the MC-BMAD (1,060/ml, 33.5 × 106/ml, and 610/ml and 28.6 × 106/ml, respectively), with comparable platelet and RBC concentrations. Data following BMA concentration to produce a BMC revealed highly significant cell yields, fewer RBCs, and lower hematocrit (HCT). A direct cellular comparison between the aspirate of the MCBMAD and centrifugated BMC following AS-BMAS marrow extraction showed highly significant differences in cellularity. The AS-BMAS produced cell concentrations of CFU/f, CD34+ cells, TNCs, platelets, and RBCs that were comparable, or greater than, the predicate device. We believe that concentrating bone marrow is a consistent and safe method to produce a BMC that has the potential to be clinically effective. Furthermore, data indicate a non-equivalent difference in BMC cellularity, when compared to a non-filtered and non-centrifugated BMA for clinical use.","PeriodicalId":89694,"journal":{"name":"Journal of stem cell research & therapy","volume":"10 1","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of stem cell research & therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35248/2157-7633/20.10.461","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The first aim of this study was to examine the cellularity and quality of autologous bone marrow aspirates harvested with two novel FDA-cleared devices, namely the Aspire™ bone marrow aspiration system (AS-BMAS) and the Marrow Cellution bone marrow aspiration device (MC-BMAD). Compared to traditional bone marrow harvesting needle systems, both these devices have a closed distal tip, avoiding preferential marrow collection (peripheral blood aspiration) from deeper cavity regions, whereas the side holes facilitate more horizontal marrow extraction. In all patients, a similar harvesting technique was used. The second aim was to demonstrate the effectiveness of mechanical centrifugation of a large volume of extracted bone marrow to produce a bone marrow concentrate (BMC). Finally, we directly compared bone marrow constituents aspirated with MC-BMAD with a BMC, generated by centrifugation of bone marrow harvested using the AS-BMAS. A bi-lateral patient model was used for all comparisons. All cellular analyses included the measurement of Colony-Forming Units-fibroblasts (CFU/f) levels, CD34+cells/ml, Total Nucleated Cells (TNCs)/ml, platelets/ml, and Red Blood Cells (RBCs)/ml in a single, FDA-approved laboratory, compliant with Good Manufacturing Practice regulations. A total of 12 patients consented to the study. In the direct BMA comparison, the AS-BMAS bone marrow yielded significantly higher CFU/f counts and TNC concentrations than the MC-BMAD (1,060/ml, 33.5 × 106/ml, and 610/ml and 28.6 × 106/ml, respectively), with comparable platelet and RBC concentrations. Data following BMA concentration to produce a BMC revealed highly significant cell yields, fewer RBCs, and lower hematocrit (HCT). A direct cellular comparison between the aspirate of the MCBMAD and centrifugated BMC following AS-BMAS marrow extraction showed highly significant differences in cellularity. The AS-BMAS produced cell concentrations of CFU/f, CD34+ cells, TNCs, platelets, and RBCs that were comparable, or greater than, the predicate device. We believe that concentrating bone marrow is a consistent and safe method to produce a BMC that has the potential to be clinically effective. Furthermore, data indicate a non-equivalent difference in BMC cellularity, when compared to a non-filtered and non-centrifugated BMA for clinical use.
使用双侧患者模型对两种新型采集设备抽吸的骨髓细胞量进行比较定量,以及离心骨髓浓缩液和骨髓抽吸作为生物注射剂的非等效差异
本研究的第一个目的是检测两种经fda批准的新型设备(Aspire™骨髓抽吸系统(AS-BMAS)和marrow Cellution骨髓抽吸装置(MC-BMAD))采集的自体骨髓抽吸物的细胞质量和质量。与传统的骨髓采集针系统相比,这两种设备都有一个封闭的远端尖端,避免了从更深的腔区收集骨髓(外周血抽吸),而侧孔则有利于更多的水平骨髓提取。在所有患者中,都使用了类似的采收技术。第二个目的是证明机械离心大量提取的骨髓产生骨髓浓缩物(BMC)的有效性。最后,我们直接比较了MC-BMAD抽吸的骨髓成分与AS-BMAS收获的骨髓离心产生的BMC。所有比较均采用双侧患者模型。所有细胞分析包括集落形成单位-成纤维细胞(CFU/f)水平的测量,CD34+细胞/ml,总有核细胞(TNCs)/ml,血小板/ml和红细胞(rbc)/ml,在一个fda批准的实验室,符合良好生产规范规定。共有12名患者同意这项研究。在直接BMA比较中,AS-BMAS骨髓的CFU/f计数和TNC浓度明显高于MC-BMAD(分别为1060 /ml、33.5 × 106/ml、610/ml和28.6 × 106/ml),血小板和红细胞浓度相当。根据BMA浓度产生BMC的数据显示,细胞产量非常显著,红细胞减少,红细胞压积(HCT)降低。直接细胞比较抽吸MCBMAD和离心BMC在AS-BMAS骨髓提取后的细胞结构差异非常显著。AS-BMAS产生的CFU/f、CD34+细胞、TNCs、血小板和红细胞浓度与前述装置相当或更高。我们认为浓缩骨髓是一种一致且安全的方法,可以产生具有临床疗效的BMC。此外,数据表明,与临床使用的非过滤和非离心BMA相比,BMC细胞数量存在非等效差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信