Use of Autologous Umbilical Cord Blood in Neonatal Cardiac Surgery: A European Survey of Current Practices and Perceptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate current clinical practices, identify perceived barriers, and explore healthcare professionals' perspectives on the use of autologous umbilical cord blood (AUCB) in neonatal cardiac surgery across Europe. METHODS: A descriptive, cross-sectional online survey was distributed to healthcare professionals involved in neonatal cardiac surgery. The questionnaire, developed ad hoc by a multidisciplinary expert team, assessed institutional AUCB use, perceived benefits and barriers, and professionals' interest in further information. The survey was disseminated through European scientific societies and professional social media platforms. Data were collected anonymously and analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 50 responses were analyzed. The majority of respondents were neonatologists (50%), followed by pediatric cardiologists and pediatric anesthesiologists; 69% were based in Spain. Only 10% of participants reported institutional use of AUCB, primarily for selected patients in the postoperative setting. Reported benefits included reduced transfusion requirements and decreased exposure to allogeneic blood products. Among non-users, key barriers included logistical challenges (32%), insufficient scientific evidence (27%), and preference for allogenic sources (10%). The most frequently cited overall obstacle for the general use of UCB was lack of education and training (75%), followed by regulatory restrictions. Only 18.8% considered the current evidence sufficient to support routine AUCB use. Despite limited implementation, overall interest was high (mean rating 4.6/5), with many respondents expressing interest in future collaboration. CONCLUSIONS: AUCB use in neonatal cardiac surgery remains limited and institution-dependent across Europe. Significant barriers-including insufficient training, logistical challenges, and perceived evidence gaps-hinder broader adoption. These findings highlight the need for standardized protocols, targeted educational strategies, and further clinical evidence to facilitate safe and effective integration of AUCB into neonatal cardiac care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".