Intravenous mesenchymal stem cell therapy for traumatic brain injury.

OBJECT: Cell therapy has shown preclinical promise in the treatment of many diseases, and its application is being translated to the clinical arena. Intravenous mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy has been shown to improve functional recovery after traumatic brain injury (TBI). Herein, the authors report on their attempts to reproduce such observations, including detailed characterizations of the MSC population, non-bromodeoxyuridine-based cell labeling, macroscopic and microscopic cell tracking, quantification of cells traversing the pulmonary microvasculature, and well-validated measurement of motor and cognitive function recovery. METHODS: Rat MSCs were isolated, expanded in vitro, immunophenotyped, and labeled. Four million MSCs were intravenously infused into Sprague-Dawley rats 24 hours after receiving a moderate, unilateral controlled cortical impact TBI. Infrared macroscopic cell tracking was used to identify cell distribution. Immunohistochemical analysis of brain and lung tissues 48 hours and 2 weeks postinfusion revealed transplanted cells in these locations, and these cells were quantified. Intraarterial blood sampling and flow cytometry were used to quantify the number of transplanted cells reaching the arterial circulation. Motor and cognitive behavioral testing was performed to evaluate functional recovery. RESULTS: At 48 hours post-MSC infusion, the majority of cells were localized to the lungs. Between 1.5 and 3.7% of the infused cells were estimated to traverse the lungs and reach the arterial circulation, 0.295% reached the carotid artery, and a very small percentage reached the cerebral parenchyma (0.0005%) and remained there. Almost no cells were identified in the brain tissue at 2 weeks postinfusion. No motor or cognitive functional improvements in recovery were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The intravenous infusion of MSCs appeared neither to result in significant acute or prolonged cerebral engraftment of cells nor to modify the recovery of motor or cognitive function. Less than 4% of the infused cells were likely to traverse the pulmonary microvasculature and reach the arterial circulation, a phenomenon termed the "pulmonary first-pass effect," which may limit the efficacy of this therapeutic approach. The data in this study contradict the findings of previous reports and highlight the potential shortcomings of acute, single-dose, intravenous MSC therapy for TBI.

The effectiveness of a needleless intravenous system in prevention of percutaneous injury in two hospitals

This study assessed if hospital-wide implementation of a needleless intravenous connection system reduces the number of reported percutaneous injuries, overall and those specifically due to intravenous connection activities.^ Incidence rates were compared before and after hospital-wide implementation of a needleless intravenous system at two hospitals, a full service general hospital and a pediatric hospital. The years 1989-1991 were designated as pre-implementation and 1993 was designated as post-implementation. Data from 1992 were not included in the effectiveness evaluation to allow employees to become familiar with use of the new device. The two hospitals showed rate ratios of 1.37 (95% CI = 1.22-1.54, p $\le$.0001) and 1.63 (95% CI = 1.34-1.97, p $\le$.0001), or a 27.1% and a 38.6% reduction in overall injury rate, respectively. Rate ratios for intravenous connection injuries were 2.67 (95% CI = 1.89-3.78, p $\le$.0001) and 3.35 (95% CI = 1.87-6.02, p $\le$.0001), or a 62.5% and a 69.9% reduction in injury rate, respectively. Rate ratios for all non-intravenous connection injuries were calculated to control for factors other than device implementation that may have been operating to reduce the injury rate. These rate ratios were lower, 1.21 and 1.44, demonstrating the magnitude of injury reduction due to factors other than device implementation. It was concluded that the device was effective in reduction of numbers of reported percutaneous injuries.^ Use-effectiveness of the system was also assessed by a survey of randomly selected device users to determine satisfaction with the device, frequency of use and barriers to use. Four hundred seventy-eight surveys were returned for a response rate of 50.9%. Approximately 94% of respondents at both hospitals expressed satisfaction with the needleless system and recommended continued use. The survey also revealed that even though over 50% of respondents report using the device "always" or "most of the time" for intravenous medication administration, flushing lines, and connecting secondary intravenous lines, needles were still being used for these same activities. Compatibility, accessibility and other technical problems were reported as reasons for using needles for these activities. These problems must be addressed, by both manufacturers and users, before the needleless system will be effective in prevention of all intravenous connection injuries. ^