To bank cord blood, or not to bank cord blood?

April 21, 2009 9:24 PM

It's been over four years since No. 1 asked, so I'm asking for an update: should we bank or donate our baby's cord blood? Or just do nothing?

As far as I know, there is not a family history of leukemia or lymphoma, but I'm not sure about genetic disposition. Has there been any real changes/advances in the science and genetics over the last four years that warrant an update to delfuego's answer?

posted by ajr to Health & Fitness (9 answers total)

No (unless you have tons of extra $$$). But you can ask them to not cut the cord unless it is done pulsating in order for baby to get as much of the cord blood as possible.

Here's two answers from people wiser than me:

1. I have a pal who is the head of a stem cell lab. When I asked her about it she said that she wouldn't recommend it at this point unless you have a family history. That's a science-y expert answer.

2. As far as quantity, this comes up in the LJ pregnant community weekly.

One woman works in a bone marrow lab and (probably) copies and pastes this answer every week:
"in full disclosure i work in a lab that is part of the nation bone marrow donor program.
With that stated - if you bank it privatively think about the follow:
1. they will not promise you that the cells will have a good freeze/thaw thus be viable
2. as of now cord blood transplants can only be done in babies and young (read small sized) children
3. it is very expensive. and most people will not need it
4. if your child develops an illness that arose from a genetic defect - why would you give those immune system cells back to them when they allowed the disease to happen in the first place
5. even if you have other children, it does not mean that they will have the same HLA typing
6. delay cord clamping is healthier for babies - if you delay the clamping then you cannot donate. "
posted by k8t at 10:11 PM on April 21, 2009 [1 favorite]

I answered the previous question this way, but now I'd probably say that I'd rather not clamp the cord right away. But maybe I wouldn't given my situation, because then I'd have the one kid with no cord blood banked and I'd feel bad if something happened. So rather, if I had it to do all over again, knowing a little bit more (which is not that much, all things considered), I'd delay cord cutting as long as possible and not worry about banking it. But I turn into more of a hippie with every year that passes, so there's that.

That all said, it's really not terribly expensive. However, my father-in-law mentioned in my previous comment still thinks we're silly--although I've since met some of his (younger, more versed in pediatric hematology) colleagues, who banked cord blood for their own children. That makes me feel less dorky about our choice.
posted by padraigin at 11:51 PM on April 21, 2009

Another vote for delaying cord clamping. We waited a full hour and I don't recall seeing a single drop go to waste.
posted by Dragonness at 7:35 AM on April 22, 2009

Delay cord clamping, yeah.
posted by pointilist at 9:10 AM on April 22, 2009

If you do decide to donate, there is a public cord blood bank located in Florida, Cryobanks, that will send a kit to you for the cord blood collection. You must contact them before your SO's 35th week of pregnancy, and you're responsible for making the arrangements with your MD to get the cord blood collected.
posted by ahdeeda at 1:28 PM on April 22, 2009

Response by poster: What's the benefit of delayed clamping? Any science behind this?
posted by ajr at 4:32 PM on April 22, 2009

With my first child it didn't even cross my mind to bank the cord blood for pretty much all the reasons k8t mentions. We donated the cord blood.

I found out I was pregnant with my second child 2 weeks after my mother was diagnosed with acute promyelocytic leukemia. Upon diagnosis, she was immediately hospitalized and underwent a very aggressive treatment for several months. To make a long story short, I discussed options with my mother's hematologist/oncologist and, despite the fact that cord blood transplants have been successfully used in the treatment of this type of leukemia, we came to the conclusion it was very unlikely that our cord blood would be useful. We donated the cord blood.

Logic prevailed despite the highly emotional nature of the situation. My mother's leukemia is in remission, no marrow or cord blood transplants were required. Given the same circumstances, I would make the same choice again.
posted by ellenaim at 7:09 PM on April 22, 2009

What's the benefit of delayed clamping? Any science behind this?


Yes, why are people advocating the delayed clamping? Does the benefit outweigh the risk of hyperbilirubinemia?
posted by werkzeuger at 8:04 AM on April 23, 2009

There's plenty of info on delayed clamping out there. Here's an excerpt from a relevant article in the British Medical Journal - described in more detail here.
posted by Dragonness at 9:32 AM on April 23, 2009