Dataset Information

The Utilization of Regional Anesthesia Among Pediatric Patients: A Retrospective Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The use of regional anesthesia (RA) in pediatric patients remains understudied, although evidence suggests benefits over general anesthesia.

Questions/purposes

We sought to identify factors associated with RA use in patients under the age of 21 years undergoing ambulatory orthopedic surgery.

Methods

Patients under the age of 21 who underwent anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair or reconstruction, knee arthroscopy (KA), or shoulder arthroscopy (SA) were identified from the NY Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) database (2005-2015). Frequencies of RA use (defined by femoral nerve block, spinal, epidural, caudal, or brachial plexus anesthesia) were calculated. Multivariable regression analysis identified patient- and healthcare system-related factors associated with the use of RA. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported.

Results

We identified 87,273 patients who underwent the procedures of interest (ACL n = 28,226; SA n = 18,155; KA n = 40,892). In our primary analysis, 14.4% (n = 1404) had RA as their primary anesthetic; this percentage increased for patients who had ACL or KA. When adjusting for covariates, Hispanic ethnicity (OR 0.78; CI 0.65-0.94) and Medicaid insurance (OR 0.75; CI 0.65-0.87) were associated with decreased odds for the provision of RA. Further, we identified increasing age (OR 1.10; CI 1.08-1.11), ACL versus SA (OR 1.91; CI 1.74-2.10), and sports injuries (OR 1.20; CI 1.10-1.31) as factors associated with increased odds of RA use.

Conclusion

In this analysis, RA was used in a minority of patients under the age of 21 undergoing ambulatory orthopedic surgery. Older age was associated with increased use while Hispanic ethnicity and lower socioeconomic status were associated with lower use.

SUBMITTER: DelPizzo K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7749893 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRacial and ethnic disparities in health care are well documented in the United States, although evidence of disparities in pediatric anesthesia is limited. We sought to determine whether there is an association between race and ethnicity and the use of intraoperative regional anesthesia at a single academic children's hospital.MethodsWe performed a retrospective review of all anesthetics at an academic tertiary children's hospital between May 4, 2014, and May 31, 2018. The primary outcome was delivery of regional anesthesia, defined as a neuraxial or peripheral nerve block. The association between patient race and ethnicity (white non-Hispanic or minority) and receipt of regional anesthesia was assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Sensitivity analyses were performed comparing white non-Hispanic to an expansion of the single minority group to individual racial and ethnic groups and on patients undergoing surgeries most likely to receive regional anesthesia (orthopedic and urology patients).ResultsOf 33,713 patient cases eligible for inclusion, 25,664 met criteria for analysis. Three-thousand one-hundred eighty-nine patients (12.4%) received regional anesthesia. One thousand eighty-six of 8884 (13.3%) white non-Hispanic patients and 2003 of 16,780 (11.9%) minority patients received regional anesthesia. After multivariable adjustment for confounding, race and ethnicity were not found to be significantly associated with receiving intraoperative regional anesthesia (adjusted odds ratios [ORs] = 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86-1.06; P = .36). Sensitivity analyses did not find significant differences between the white non-Hispanic group and individual races and ethnicities, nor did they find significant differences when analyzing only orthopedic and urology patients, despite observing some meaningful clinical differences.ConclusionsIn an analysis of patients undergoing surgical anesthesia at a single academic children's hospital, race and ethnicity were not significantly associated with the adjusted ORs of receiving intraoperative regional anesthesia. This finding contrasts with much of the existing health care disparities literature and warrants further study with additional datasets to understand the mechanisms involved.

Project description:BackgroundThe relationship between the type of anesthesia and the survival outcomes of gastric cancer patients is uncertain. This study compared the overall outcome of gastric cancer patients after surgery with total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) or inhalation anesthesia (IHA).MethodsClinicopathological variables of gastric cancer patients were retrieved from the database of the Surgical Gastric Cancer Patient Registry in West China Hospital, Sichuan University. Patients were grouped according to whether they received TIVA or IHA during the operation. Propensity score (PS) matching was used to balance the baseline variables, and survival outcomes were compared between these two groups. In addition, studies comparing survival outcomes between TIVA and IHA used for gastric cancer surgery and published before April 20th, 2020, were identified, and their data were pooled.ResultsA total of 2827 patients who underwent surgical treatment from Jan 2009 to Dec 2016 were included. There were 323 patients in the TIVA group and 645 patients in the IHA group, with 1:2 PS matching. There was no significant difference in overall survival outcomes between the TIVA and IHA groups before matching the cohort (p = 0.566) or after matching the cohort (p = 0.679) by log-rank tests. In the Cox hazard regression model, there was no significant difference between the TIVA and IHA groups before (HR: 1.054, 95% CI: 0.881-1.262, p = 0.566) or after (HR: 0.957, 95% CI: 0.779-1.177, p = 0.679) PS matching. The meta-analysis of survival outcomes between the TIVA and IHA groups found critical statistical value in the before PS matching cohort (HR 0.74, 95% CI: 0.57-0.96 p < 0.01) and after PS matching cohort (HR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.46-0.94, p < 0.01).ConclusionsCombined with the results of previous studies, total intravenous anesthesia has been shown to be superior to inhalation anesthesia in terms of overall survival for gastric cancer patients undergoing surgical treatment. The selection of intravenous or inhalation anesthesia for gastric cancer surgery should take into account the long-term prognosis of the patient.

Project description:BACKGROUND: The role of biologic therapies in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis has expanded, but dosing patterns in the first versus subsequent lines of therapy have not been thoroughly explored. METHODS: In order to describe patterns of biologic agent utilization among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, health care claims data on use of abatacept, rituximab, or the anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents etanercept, adalimumab, and infliximab in first- or subsequent-line settings were used to form patient cohorts. Variables included: starting dose (first administration or fill), maintenance dose (third administration or fill), average dose, dose escalation, inter-infusion interval, and discontinuation (gap in therapy > 60 days or switch). Time to discontinuation was assessed with Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Over 1 year, average (SD) doses of first-line etanercept (N = 1593; 45.4 [8.8] mg/week), adalimumab (N = 1040; 40.7 [10.4] mg/2 weeks), and abatacept (N = 360; 715.4 [214.5] mg/4 weeks) were similar to the starting and maintenance doses; the average infliximab dose (N = 538; 441.0 [209.2] mg/8 weeks) was greater than the starting and maintenance doses. Trends in the subsequent-line anti-TNF cohorts were similar. The percentages with a dose escalation or discontinuation were greater in the subsequent-line anti-TNF cohorts. The proportion with a dose escalation was greatest for the infliximab cohorts (61.2% first-line and 80.2% subsequent-line). The average period between abatacept infusions was 4.8 [1.4] weeks (4-week approved schedule); and 6.8 [2.6] months between rituximab courses (currently approved schedule is 6 months). Time to discontinuation was significantly shorter for subsequent-line than first-line anti-TNF therapy (median 9.7 vs. 12.5 mo; p < 0.001). The hazard ratio for discontinuing subsequent-line versus first-line anti-TNF therapy was 1.177 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Subsequent-line anti-TNF therapy cohorts had higher rates of discontinuation, dose escalation, and shorter time to discontinuation than first-line anti-TNF cohorts.