Table 2.
Regenerative indication prevalence (N = 94,539 families)
| Indicationa | Families reporting regenerative indication (%)b | Families reporting regenerative indication (only in child donor) (%)b |
|---|---|---|
| Autism/ASD/apraxia | 2885 (3.05) | 1820 (1.93) |
| Other developmental delay | 2119 (2.24) | 1282 (1.36) |
| Congenital heart defectc | 230 (1.86) | 107 (0.87) |
| Childhood hearing loss | 1097 (1.16) | 378 (0.40) |
| Diabetes, type I | 2374 (2.51) | 247 (0.26) |
| Cerebral palsy/PVL/hypotonia | 748 (0.79) | 234 (0.25) |
| Inflammatory bowel disease | 2218 (2.35) | 128 (0.14) |
| Hydrocephalus | 278 (0.29) | 121 (0.13) |
| In-utero brain injury/stroke | 233 (0.25) | 98 (0.10) |
| Hypoxic-ischemic brain injury | 270 (0.29) | 77 (0.08) |
| Traumatic brain injury | 344 (0.36) | 54 (0.06) |
| Infant lung disease (e.g. bronchopulmonary dysplasia) | 100 (0.11) | 49 (0.05) |
| Spinal cord injury | 348 (0.37) | 33 (0.03) |
| Muscular dystrophy | 156 (0.17) | 33 (0.03) |
| Diabetes, type II | 2592 (2.74) | 12 (0.01) |
| Systemic lupus | 431 (0.46) | 4 (0.00) |
| Families reporting at least 1 regenerative indication | 16,423 (17.37)d | 4677 (4.95)d |
| Unique families reporting at least 1 regenerative indication | 13,706 (14.50)e | 4000 (4.23)e |
ASD autism spectrum disorder, PVL periventricular leukomalacia
aFamilies may report more than one indication. Ordered by percent of families reporting indication (only in child donor)
bAdjusted using inverse probability weighting based on respondent age, age of child, and number of cord blood units
cCongenital heart defect appeared only on a subset of the surveys of which 12,366 were returned. Therefore, we calculated the prevalence based on this lower denominator
dThe sum of the percentages for all specific indications is more than the total number of regenerative indications divided by the sampled population because the prevalence for congenital heart defect was calculated on a subset of families
ePercent represents unique families reporting at least one regenerative indication divided by total unique families responding. The total is lower than the sum of regenerative indications (families with more than 1 regenerative indication were counted once)