EmCyte VS RegenLab

EmCyte AbsolutePRP Gold & PurePRP vs RegenLab RegenKit-BCT 3:

Over the last decade Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) has gained popularity in esthetics as a monotherapy for dermal rejuvenation, hair regeneration, and acne scars, just to name a few. With over 30 commercially available PRP kits on the market, it can be difficult to know which kit to choose.

PLYMOUTH MEDICAL is committed to providing our clients with the best medical equipment and PRP kits available. To that end, we frequently compares PRP devices with independent cell count reviews to:

1) Highlight the dramatic cell count differences between commercially available kits and;

2) Develop a better understanding of the cellular composition of therapeutic PRP for various indications, specifically esthetic and dermal rejuvenation.

Platelet Dose

Though the frequency of injections for esthetics is detailed in quite a few studies, there is a paucity of data regarding the dose-response of PRP treatments. 

For MSK treatments, there is an emerging consensus that a clinically therapeutic dose of PRP is at least 5X platelets over baseline [1] or at least 10 billion platelets per 8mL aliquot of PRP (knee OA). [2] Although the field of esthetics has yet to establish its own relevant dosing requirement, several studies have put forth a clinically relevant dose of 2X-6X PLT concentration or 1-5 million platelets/uL. [3-10]

EmCyte PRP, specifically the neutrophil-poor Protocol A preparation of the GS30 PurePRP II, consistently provides a 6-8X PLT concentration and over 4-5  billion platelets in a PRP volume of the healthcare provider’s choice. [11], [12] Note: With double spin kits, the dose of platelets remains the same regardless of PRP volume while the concentration varies on the quantity of PPP used to resuspend the platelet pellet. 

Even without relevant dosing data, it is evident that both the EmCyte PurePRP II and EmCyte AbsolutePRP 20mL Gold kits offer superior platelet output compared to similar test tube systems on the market, such as the RegenLab kit:

• EmCyte’s PurePRP II 30mL  double spin kit: Provides over 4+ billion platelets in a PRP sample from a 30mL draw. 

• EmCyte’s AbsolutePRP 20mL Gold single spin system: Provides 2.5 to 5 billion platelets from a single spin. 

• RegenLab RegenKit-BCT 3: Provides 0.49 billion platelets. 

Total platelet dose comparison is included in the summary tables below.

Platelet Concentration (X-Factor)

Platelet concentration, or “X-Factor,” can only be used as a comparison measure between different PRP preparation systems and protocols. This is because the calculation does not consider injectate volume and total dose of platelets delivered but rather accounts for any natural variances in patient platelet baseline levels. For more information, check out our blog post: What is ‘X-Factor’ When Discussing PRP & Why Does it Matter?

RegenLab’s white paper reports a PRP concentration of 1.6X over baseline whole blood platelet levels. [13] This is higher than the 0.7X found in our comparison, but still well below the 2-6X found with the EmCyte kits:

• EmCyte’s PurePRP II double spin system: Provides 6.6X in 4mL of PRP

• EmCyte’s AbsolutePRP 20mL Gold single spin system: Provides 2.2X with 8mL of PRP

• RegenLab RegenKit-BCT 3: 0.7X platelet concentration over baseline

Platelet concentration is included in the summary tables below. 

Kit Efficiency (Platelet Recovery %)

One important quality to consider when comparing kits is how effectively each kit recovers platelets (%) from a whole blood sample. 

• EmCyte’s PurePRP II double spin system:  Recovers on average 81% of all platelets loaded in the system from whole blood.

• EmCyte’s AbsolutePRP 20mL Gold single spin system: Recovers 97% of platelets from whole blood.

• RegenLab RegenKit-BCT 3: Recovers only 35% of platelets from whole blood harvested into the vacutainer.

Platelet recovery %  comparison is included in the summary tables below. 

Cost

Despite platelet recovery and purity being important clinically,  the price of PRP kits drives many providers to adopt test tube kits such as RegenLab, Eclipse, Selphyl and others. However, since these kits are not shown to be effective in recovering therapeutic platelet doses, one must look at the cost per billion platelets or the therapeutic cost of PRP rather than simply the kit price.

• EmCyte’s PurePRP II double spin systems cost per billion platelets averages $39.77/billion platelets harvested 

• EmCyte’s AbsolutePRP 20mL Gold single spin system: $27.47/billion platelets harvested 

• RegenLab: cost of $200.00/billion platelets harvested 

Cost per billion platelets comparison is included in the summary tables below. 

Materials & Technical Comparisons

Summary of PRP Analysis

DEPA

Conclusion

As supported by the above comparison tables, when compared to RegenLab’s RegenKit-BCT 3 PRP system, EmCyte’s single and double spin systems provide a higher dose, processed by a more efficient system, with less cost associated with platelet recovery and concentration. 

At the time of this writing, there exists a dearth of credible research to support the clinically significant dose of PRP treatment in esthetic applications. That is not to say that PRP is not an effective treatment in the esthetic field, just that additional research in the form of Randomized Clinical Trials (RTC) is needed.

In addition to EmCyte outperforming RegenLab in platelet yield, concentration, and cost per billion platelets, the double spin kit offers a few additional benefits.

Platelet Poor Plasma (PPP), often discarded during the preparation of PRP,  is gaining popularity as a biofiller [15] or combination treatment with microneedling. The EmCyte PurePRP double spin protocol produces both PRP and PPP compared to RegenLab’s PRP only output. The versatility of the EmCyte PurePRP kit makes it ideal for esthetics by giving the physician the flexibility and customization from a single kit versus RegenLab requiring additional blood to be drawn if multiple treatments are desired, leading to increased kit usage, cost, and waste. 

The double spin protocol offered by EmCyte also allows for a No Burn protocol which addresses discomfort during injections. [16] The anticoagulant used during the blood draw can create a slightly acidic solution that, upon injection, can cause pain  or irritation. By replacing the plasma used to resuspend the platelet concentrate with sterile bacteriostatic  saline, the pH is neutralized and the patient more comfortable. All ideal for esthetic procedures. 

Practitioners and researchers that seek to provide PRP treatment and advance the research in the field of esthetics would be well served by adopting the EmCyte kits.

Testing Data Sources:

EmCyte AbsolutePRP 20mL Gold: PLYMOUTH MEDICAL Quality Control testing

EmCyte GS30-PURE-II - Mandle Comparison of EmCyte GS30 PurePRP II, EmCyte GS60 PurePRP II, Arteriocyte Magellan, Stryker RegenKit THT, and Eclipse PRP

RegenLab RegenKit THT: Mandle Comparison of EmCyte GS30 PurePRP II, EmCyte GS60 PurePRP II, Arteriocyte Magellan, Stryker RegenKit THT, and Eclipse PRP

Citations

[1] Cole, Brian J., et al. “Platelet-Rich Plasma: Where Are We Now and Where Are We Going?” Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach, vol. 2, no. 3, 2010, pp. 203–210., https://doi.org/10.1177/1941738110366385. 

[2] Bansal, Himanshu, et al. “Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) in Osteoarthritis (OA) Knee: Correct Dose Critical for Long Term Clinical Efficacy.” Scientific Reports, vol. 11, no. 1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-83025-2. 

[3] Gentile, Pietro, et al. “The Effect of Platelet-Rich Plasma in Hair Regrowth: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial.” Stem Cells Translational Medicine, vol. 4, no. 11, 2015, pp. 1317–1323., https://doi.org/10.5966/sctm.2015-0107. 

[4] Alves, Rubina, and Ramon Grimalt. “Randomized Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind, Half-Head Study to Assess the Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma on the Treatment of Androgenetic Alopecia.” Dermatologic Surgery, vol. 42, no. 4, 2016, pp. 491–497., https://doi.org/10.1097/dss.0000000000000665. 

[5] Trink, A., et al. “A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo- and Active-Controlled, Half-Head Study to Evaluate the Effects of Platelet-Rich Plasma on Alopecia Areata.” British Journal of Dermatology, vol. 169, no. 3, 2013, pp. 690–694., https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.12397. 

[6] Giusti I., et.al. Identification of an optimal concentration of platelet gel for promoting angiogenesis in human endothelial cells. Transfusion. 2009 Apr;49(4):771-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2008.02033.x. Epub 2008 Dec 23. PMID: 19170984.

[7] Pakhomova, Elena E., and Irina O. Smirnova. “Comparative Evaluation of the Clinical Efficacy of PRP-Therapy, Minoxidil, and Their Combination with Immunohistochemical Study of the Dynamics of Cell Proliferation in the Treatment of Men with Androgenetic Alopecia.” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 21, no. 18, 2020, p. 6516., https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21186516. 

[8] Gharib, Khaled, et al. “Therapeutic Effect of Microneedling with Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Microneedling with Tranexamic Acid for Melasma.” Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology, vol. 14, no. 8, Aug. 2021, pp. 46–48. 

[9] Weibrich G, Hansen T, Kleis W, Buch R, Hitzler WE. Effect of platelet concentration in platelet-rich plasma on peri-implant bone regeneration. Bone. 2004 Apr;34(4):665-71. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2003.12.010. PMID: 15050897.

[10] Stevens J, Khetarpal S. Platelet-rich plasma for androgenetic alopecia: A review of the literature and proposed treatment protocol. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2018 Sep 21;5(1):46-51. doi: 10.1016/j.ijwd.2018.08.004. PMID: 30809579; PMCID: PMC6374694.

[11] Mandle, Robert PhD. Research Study: Comparison of EmCyte GS30-PurePRP® II, EmCyte GS60-PurePRP® II, Arteriocyte MAGELLAN, Stryker REGENKIT®THT, and ECLIPSE PRP (2016).

[12] Mandle, Robert PhD. Comparisons of EmCyte PurePRP II, Harvest/Terumo APC60/Clear PRP, and Arthrex Angel PRP Products (2015).

[13] RegenLab USA. RegenLab A-PRP Technology. https://az767150.vo.msecnd.net/pdf/RegenLab_Product_Overview.pdf

[14] Magalon, J, et al. Depa Classification: A Proposal for Standardising PRP Use and a Retrospective Application of Available Devices. BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine, vol. 2, no. 1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2015-000060.

[15] Doghaim NN, El-Tatawy RA, Neinaa YME. Assessment of the efficacy and safety of platelet poor plasma gel as autologous dermal filler for facial rejuvenation. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2019 Feb 26. doi: 10.1111/jocd.12876. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 30809897.

[16] Görgü, M., Gökkaya, A. & Doğan, A. Comparison of Two Anticoagulants for Pain Associated with Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections. Aesth Plast Surg 44, 955–961 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-019-01541-z.

03/28/23