4.5 Article

A randomized phase III clinical trial of autologous blood stem cell transplantation comparing cryopreservation using dimethylsulfoxide vs dimethylsulfoxide with hydroxyethylstarch

Journal

BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 31, Issue 11, Pages 1043-1051

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bmt.1704030

Keywords

cryopreservation; dimethylsulfoxide; hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; hydroxyethylstarch

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA18029, CA15704] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Hematopoietic stem cells intended for autologous transplantation are usually cryopreserved in solutions containing 10% dimethylsulfoxide ( DMSO, v/v) or 5% DMSO in combination with 6% hydroxyethylstarch (HES, w/v). We performed a single-blinded, randomized study comparing these cryoprotectant solutions for patients undergoing autologous peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) transplantation. A total of 294 patients were evaluable; 148 received cells frozen with 10% DMSO and 146 received cells frozen in 5% DMSO/6% HES. Patients who received cells frozen with the combination cryoprotectant recovered their white blood cell count greater than or equal to 1.0 x 10(9)/l at a median of 10 days, one day faster than those who received PBSC frozen with DMSO alone ( P = 0.04). Time to achieve neutrophil counts of greater than or equal to0.5 x 10(9) and greater than or equal to1.0 x 10(9)/l were similarly faster for the recipients of the cells frozen in the combination solution. This effect was more pronounced for patients who received quantities of CD34+ cells higher than the median for the population. Median time to discontinuation of antibiotic use was also one day faster for the recipients of cells cryopreserved with DMSO/HES ( P = 0.04). In contrast, median times to recovery of platelet count greater than or equal to20 x 10(9)/l were equivalent for each group (10 days; P = 0.99) and the median numbers of red cell and platelet transfusions did not differ.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available