Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

BACKGROUND: Europe is currently the most active region in the field of pancreatic islet transplantation, and many of the leading groups are actually achieving similar good outcomes. Further collaborative advances in the field require the standardization of islet cell product isolation processes, and this work aimed to identify differences in the human pancreatic islet isolation processes within European countries. METHODS: A web-based questionnaire about critical steps, including donor selection, pancreas processing, pancreas perfusion and digestion, islet counting and culture, islet quality evaluation, microbiological evaluation, and release criteria of the product, was completed by isolation facilities participating at the Ninth International European Pancreas and Islet Transplant Association (EPITA) Workshop on Islet-Beta Cell Replacement in Milan. RESULTS: Eleven islet isolation facilities completed the questionnaire. The facilities reported 445 and 53 islet isolations per year over the last 3 years from deceased organ donors and pancreatectomized patients, respectively. This activity resulted in 120 and 40 infusions per year in allograft and autograft recipients, respectively. Differences among facilities emerged in donor selection (age, cold ischemia time, intensive care unit length, amylase concentration), pancreas procurement, isolation procedures (brand and concentration of collagenase, additive, maximum acceptable digestion time), quality evaluation, and release criteria for transplantation (glucose-stimulated insulin secretion tests, islet numbers, and purity). Moreover, even when a high concordance about the relevance of one parameter was evident, thresholds for the acceptance were different among facilities. CONCLUSIONS: The result highlighted the presence of a heterogeneity in the islet cell product process and product release criteria.

Original publication




Journal article



Publication Date





190 - 196