Early Results of Orthopaedic Trauma and Anemia: Conservative Versus Liberal Transfusion Strategy.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to determine whether it is safe to use a conservative packed red blood cell transfusion hemoglobin threshold (5.5 g/dL) compared with a liberal transfusion threshold (7.0 g/dL) for asymptomatic patients with musculoskeletal-injured trauma out of the initial resuscitative period. METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, nonblinded, randomized study done at three level 1 trauma centers. One hundred patients were enrolled. One patient was inappropriately enrolled, withdrawn from the study, and excluded from analysis leaving 99 patients (49 liberal and 50 conservative) with 30-day follow-up. After initial resuscitation, patients were enrolled and randomized to either a liberal or a conservative transfusion strategy. This strategy was followed throughout the index hospitalization. The primary outcome of the study was infection. Superficial infection was defined as clinical diagnosis of cellulitis or other superficial infection treated with oral antibiotics only. Deep infection was defined as clinical diagnosis of fracture-related infection requiring IV antibiotics and/or surgical débridement. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients were successfully followed for 30 days with 100% follow-up during this time. Seven infections (14%) occurred in the liberal group and none in the conservative group ( P < 0.01). Five deep infections (10%) occurred in the liberal group and none in the conservative group ( P = 0.03). Three superficial infections (6%) occurred in the liberal and none in the conservative group, which was not a significant difference ( P = 0.1). No difference was observed in length of stay between groups. DISCUSSION: Transfusing young healthy asymptomatic patients with orthopaedic trauma for hemoglobin <7.0 g/dL increases the risk of infection. No increased risk of anemia-related complications was identified with a conservative transfusion threshold of 5.5 g/dL. DATA AVAILABILITY AND TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: Data are available on request. IRB protocol number is 1402557771. This study was registered with Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT02972593. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2, unblinded prospective randomized multicenter study.

Orthopaedic Trauma and Anemia: Conservative versus Liberal Transfusion Strategy: A Prospective Randomized Study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether it is safe to use a conservative packed red blood cell transfusion hemoglobin (Hgb) threshold (5.5 g/dL) compared with a liberal transfusion threshold (7.0 g/dL) for asymptomatic musculoskeletal injured trauma patients who are no longer in the initial resuscitative period. METHODS: Design: Prospective, randomized, multicenter trial. SETTING: Three level 1 trauma centers. PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA: Patients aged 18-50 with an associated musculoskeletal injury with Hgb less than 9 g/dL or expected drop below 9 g/dL with planned surgery who were stable and no longer being actively resuscitated were randomized once their Hgb dropped below 7 g/dL to a conservative transfusion threshold of 5.5 g/dL versus a liberal threshold of 7.0 g/dL. OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS: Postoperative infection, other post-operative complications and Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment scores obtained at baseline, 6 months, and 1 year were compared for liberal and conservative transfusion thresholds. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients completed 1 year follow-up. There was a significant association between a liberal transfusion strategy and higher rate of infection (P = 0.01), with no difference in functional outcomes at 6 months or 1 year. This study was adequately powered at 92% to detect a difference in superficial infection (7% for liberal group, 0% for conservative, P < 0.01) but underpowered to detect a difference for deep infection (14% for liberal group, 6% for conservative group, P = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: A conservative transfusion threshold of 5.5 g/dL in an asymptomatic young trauma patient with associated musculoskeletal injuries leads to a lower infection rate without an increase in adverse outcomes and no difference in functional outcomes at 6 months or 1 year. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Advancing Equity in Graduate Medical Education Recruitment Through a Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Toolkit for Program Directors.

Objectives: To increase diversity and inclusion in graduate medical education (GME), the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) issued new diversity standards requiring programs to engage in practices that focus on systematic recruitment and retention of a diverse workforce of trainees and faculty. The literature on how program directors (PDs) can incorporate and prepare for this standard is limited. Methods: We developed a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) toolkit for PDs as an example of an institutional GME-led effort to promote inclusive recruitment and DEI awareness among residency and fellowship programs at a large academic center. Results: A survey was sent to 80 PDs before the launch of the toolkit and 6 months afterwards with response rates of 27% (22/80) and 97% (78/80), respectively. At baseline, 45% (10/22) anticipated that the DEI toolkit might provide better resources than those currently available to them and 41% (9/22) perceived that the toolkit might improve recruitment outcomes. At 6 months, 63% (49/78) found the toolkit helpful in the 2021-2022 recruitment season. By contrast, 2% (2/78) of PDs did not find the toolkit helpful, and 33% (26/78) said they did not access the toolkit. When asked if a PD changed their program's recruitment practices because of the toolkit, 31% (24/78) responded yes. Programs that changed recruitment practices started to require unconscious bias training for all faculty and residents involved in the residency interviews and ranking. Others worked on creating a standardized scoring rubric for interviews focused on four main domains: Experiences, Attributes, Competencies, and Academic Metrics. Conclusion: There is a need to support PDs in their DEI journey and their work to recruit a diverse workforce in medicine. Utilizing a DEI toolkit is one option to increase DEI knowledge, skills, awareness, and self-efficacy among PDs and can be adopted by other institutions and leaders in academic medicine.