• Andreas H Taenzer, Matthew Hoyt, Elliot J Krane, Benjamin J Walker, Sean Flack, Adrian Bosenberg, Navil F Sethna, Franklin Andrew D AD Department of Anesthesiology, Vanderbilt Medical School, Monroe Carell Jr Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tennessee., David M Polaner, and PRAN investigators.
• From the Department of Anesthesiology, The Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Children's Hospital at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
• Anesth. Analg. 2020 Jun 1; 130 (6): 1693-1701.

BackgroundGiven that variation exists in health care utilization, expenditure, and medical practice, there is a paucity of data on variation within the practice of anesthesia. The Pediatric Regional Anesthesia Network (PRAN) data lend itself to explore whether different medical practice patterns exist and if there are nerve blocks with more local anesthetic dosing variation than others. The primary aim of this study was to quantify variation in single injection caudal block dosing, and the secondary aim was to explore possible causes for variation (eg, number of blocks performed versus geographic location).MethodsWe queried the PRAN database for single injection caudal blocks in children <1 year of age. Data were analyzed for local anesthetic dose, variation within and across institutions, and possible causes.ResultsMean dose of bupivacaine equivalents per kilogram (BE·kg) among sites ranged from 1.39 to 2.22 with an interdecile range (IDR) containing the mid 80% of all doses ranging from 0.21 to 1.48. Mean dose (BE·kg) was associated with site, age, weight, and local anesthetic used (all P < .0001). Cohen's F effect size estimate was 10 times higher for site (0.65) than for age (0.05) or weight (0.02). Variation (IDR) was not related to number of blocks done at each site (P = .23). Mean volume per kilogram was 0.9± ± 0.2 (mean ± ±standard deviation) and was more strongly associated with site (Cohen's F 0.3) than age (0.04) or weight (0.07).ConclusionsWide variation in caudal local anesthetic dosing and administered volume exists. This variation is independent of the number of cases performed at each center but rather is determined by study site (ie, variation between centers) with considerable additional variation within study centers, suggesting additional variability dependent on individual practitioners. While there are legitimate reasons to vary dosing, the current approach is inconsistent and not supported by strong evidence over giving a standardized dose.

27 keywords...

hide…