Search

BackgroundThis pilot assessed transfusion requirements during resuscitation with whole blood followed by standard component therapy (CT) versus CT alone, during a change in practice at a large urban Level I trauma center.MethodsThis was a single-center prospective cohort pilot study. Male trauma patients received up to 4 units of cold-stored low anti-A, anti-B group O whole blood (LTOWB) as initial resuscitation followed by CT as needed (LTOWB + CT). A control group consisting of women and men who presented when LTOWB was unavailable, received CT only (CT group). Exclusion criteria included antiplatelet or anticoagulant medication and death within 24 hours. The primary outcome was total transfusion volume at 24 hours. Secondary outcomes were mortality, morbidity, and intensive care unit- and hospital-free days.ResultsThirty-eight patients received LTOWB, with a median of 2.0 (interquartile range [IQR] 1.0-3.0) units of LTOWB transfused. Thirty-two patients received CT only. At 24 hours after presentation, the LTOWB +CT group had received a median of 2,138 mL (IQR, 1,275-3,325 mL) of all blood products. The median for the CT group was 4,225 mL (IQR, 1,900-5,425 mL; p = 0.06) in unadjusted analysis. When adjusted for Injury Severity Score, sex, and positive Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma, LTOWB +CT group patients received 3307 mL of blood products, and CT group patients received 3,260 mL in the first 24 hours (p = 0.95). The adjusted median ratio of plasma to red cells transfused was higher in the LTOWB + CT group (0.85 vs. 0.63 at 24 hours after admission; p = 0.043. Adjusted mortality was 4.4% in the LTOWB + CT group, and 11.7% in the CT group (p = 0.19), with similar complications, intensive care unit-, and hospital-free days in both groups.ConclusionBeginning resuscitation with LTOWB results in equivalent outcomes compared with resuscitation with CT only.Level of evidenceTherapeutic (Prospective study with 1 negative criterion, limited control of confounding factors), level III.

Importance: Because mentorship is critical for professional development and career advancement, it is essential to examine the status of mentorship and identify challenges that junior surgical faculty (assistant and associate professors) face obtaining effective mentorship., Objective: To evaluate the mentorship experience for junior surgical faculty and highlight areas for improvement., Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study was an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study including an anonymous survey on mentorship followed by semistructured interviews to expand on survey findings. Junior surgical faculty from 18 US academic surgery programs were included in the anonymous survey and interviews. Survey responses between "formal" (assigned by the department) vs "informal" (sought out by the faculty) mentors and male vs female junior faculty were compared using χ2 tests. Interview responses were analyzed for themes until thematic saturation was achieved. Survey responses were collected from November 2022 to August 2023, and interviews conducted from July to December 2023., Exposure: Mentorship from formal and/or informal mentors., Main Outcomes and Measures: Survey gauged the availability and satisfaction with formal and informal mentorship; interviews assessed broad themes regarding mentorship., Results: Of 825 survey recipients, 333 (40.4%) responded; 155 (51.7%) were male and 134 (44.6%) female. Nearly all respondents (319 [95.8%]) agreed or strongly agreed that mentorship is important to their surgical career, especially for professional networking (309 respondents [92.8%]), career advancement (301 [90.4%]), and research (294 [88.3%]). However, only 58 respondents (18.3%) had a formal mentor. More female than male faculty had informal mentors (123 [91.8%] vs 123 [79.4%]; P = .003). Overall satisfaction was higher with informal mentorship than formal mentorship (221 [85.0%] vs 40 [69.0%]; P = .01). Most male and female faculty reported no preferences in gender or race and ethnicity for their mentors. When asked if they had good mentor options if they wanted to change mentors, 141 (47.8%) responded no. From the interviews (n = 20), 6 themes were identified, including absence of mentorship infrastructure, preferred mentor characteristics, and optimizing mentorship., Conclusions and Relevance: Academic junior surgical faculty agree mentorship is vital to their careers. However, this study found that few had formal mentors and almost half need more satisfactory options if they want to change mentors. Academic surgical programs should adopt a framework for facilitating mentorship and optimize mentor-mentee relationships through alignment of mentor-mentee goals and needs.