Adverse events caused by cord blood infusion in Japan during a 5‐year period. Issue 1 (1st December 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hashimoto, Shiho; Kato, Koji; Kai, Shunro; Sekimoto, Tatsuya; Minemoto, Mutsuko; Ishii, Hiroyuki; Mori, Tetsuo; Azuma, Fumihiro; Ishimaru, Fumihiko; Kimura, Takafumi; Miyata, Shigeki; Satake, Masahiro; Takanashi, Minoko
• Is Part Of: Vox sanguinis. Volume 118:Issue 1(2023)
• Page Start: 84
• Page End: 92
• Publication Date: 2022-12-01
• Subjects: classification of adverse event -- haematopoietic stem cells -- infection -- umbilical cord blood transplantation; Blood -- Periodicals; Blood -- Transfusion -- Periodicals; Immunohematology -- Periodicals; Immunopathology -- Periodicals; 615.39
• DOI: 10.1111/vox.13379
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0042-9007

Abstract

Abstract: Background and Objectives: In Japan, cord blood is used for more than half of all unrelated stem cell transplantations. The public cord blood banks (CBBs) have been collecting information on cord blood transplantation‐related adverse events from physicians on a voluntary basis, without common definitions of the adverse reactions. The aims of this study were to compare two classification systems to improve the reporting system and to clarify the actual risk from cord blood infusion, which can then provide the impetus to take appropriate measures to reduce adverse events. Materials and Methods: We classified the reports according to existing criteria; one is the Proposed Standard Definitions for Surveillance of Non‐Infectious Adverse Transfusion Reactions by the International Society of Blood Transfusion (ISBT) Working Party on Haemovigilance, and the other is the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). There were 140 cases with adverse events reported from April 2014 through March 2019. Results: Twelve cases, such as donor‐derived leukaemia/myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and chromosomal aberrations reported after engraftment, were excluded from this analysis. Of the 128 cases with adverse events at cord blood infusion, the CTCAE and ISBT criteria could not classify 6 cases and 68 cases, respectively. Classifying by the CTCAE, the most common side effect was hypertension in 35 cases, followed by anaphylaxis, allergic reactions, nausea, urticaria, etc. Serious adverse events (grades 4 and 5) were mainly anaphylaxis, with a frequency of 0.23%. Conclusion: It is necessary not only to provide information on adverse events but also to standardize the reporting of adverse events to support measures to reduce them.