Tay, Cindy

Abstract Background and Objectives Cryoprecipitated antihemophilic factor (cryoprecipitate), fibrinogen concentrate (FC), and pathogen‐reduced cryoprecipitated fibrinogen complex (PR cryoprecipitate) are sources of fibrinogen replacement, and each has advantages and disadvantages in terms of cost, efficacy, safety, and logistics of administration. This study examines the respective utilization frequencies of these different products at institutions in North America and the factors influencing the decision on which one(s) to adopt. Materials and Methods A survey was distributed via email to contacts for Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB)‐accredited blood banks/transfusion services. Survey questions covered topics including the availability and usage of FC, cryoprecipitate, and PR cryoprecipitate, as well as the perceived advantages of each product. Results A total of 53 responses were received from surveyed institutions (estimated 25% response rate). Over half (31/53, 58.5%) of respondents exclusively used cryoprecipitate, 30.2% (16/53) used two sources of fibrinogen replacement, and 7.5% (4/53) used all three (cryoprecipitate, FC, and PR cryoprecipitate). More than half of the institutions restricted FC to specific indications, primarily for cost containment. The most commonly cited advantages of FC over cryoprecipitate were storage convenience and rapid reconstitution. Conclusion Surveyed institutions in the United States and Canada primarily use cryoprecipitate for fibrinogen replacement, with variable usage of FC and limited usage of PR cryoprecipitate. The perception of FC being more expensive than cryoprecipitate predominated. Further studies comparing available fibrinogen replacement options would be valuable, particularly with consideration of product acquisition cost, wastage, impacts on utilization of other blood products, and patient outcomes.

Abstract Objectives To evaluate the gender composition of departmental chairs and program leadership of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education–accredited pathology residencies and American Board of Pathology–certified subspecialty fellowships across the United States. Methods In this cross-sectional analysis, we examined the gender of individuals holding leadership positions in academic pathology in the United States. Using publicly available online data, 2 authors independently coded perceived gender (ie, man/woman/other) with 100% concordance. Results In 144 pathology residency programs, more women hold residency program director positions (52.1% [75/144]). Among 11 pathology subspecialties, women overall hold fewer fellowship program director positions (45.0% [212/471]). Among the residency-associated pathology department chair positions identified, women hold fewer positions (31.8% [42/132]). There is some geographic variation in pathology leadership gender composition when stratified using US Census regions. Conclusions Women in academic pathology departments are well represented in residency and overall fellowship program leadership but are underrepresented in department chair and certain pathology subspecialty leadership positions. The disproportionate number of women in department chair positions is observed across medical specialties, highlighting the need for improved gender equity among high-level academic medicine positions.