The Influence of Race and Socioeconomic Factors on Patient Acceptance of Perioperative Epidural Analgesia

Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, University of Pennsylvania Health System, University of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, USA.
Anesthesia and analgesia (Impact Factor: 3.47). 01/2008; 105(6):1787-92, table of contents. DOI: 10.1213/01.ane.0000290339.76513.e3
Source: PubMed


Ethnic minorities and patients of lower socioeconomic status may be more averse to the acceptance of epidural analgesia than nonminority counterparts and those of higher socioeconomic status, despite evidence for substantial benefit to the patient.
A scripted telephone survey was developed from the 2000 United States Census by a panel of experts. Contact was attempted at least twice for all patients listed for surgery at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania over a 4-mo period.
Three thousand seven hundred thirty-nine patients were called and 1265 subjects were successfully contacted and 1193 consented, whereas 72 refused to participate. Seven hundred sixty-two subjects (64%) would accept an epidural if recommended by an anesthesiologist and 425 (36%) would refuse. If the epidural was recommended by both the anesthesiologist and surgeon acceptance increased to 932 (78.5%). The univariate predictor of refusal of perioperative epidural analgesia was African American race. Univariate predictors of acceptance include full- or part-time employment, total household income >$50,001/yr, college graduate, prior epidural treatment, and knowledge of what an epidural is. When the potential confounders of race, total household income, employment, and education were included in a multivariate logistic regression model, African American race predicted refusal (odds ratio [OR], 0.58; P < 0.006; confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.81) and was the only factor that predicted refusal or acceptance of epidural analgesia.
Acceptance of perioperative epidural analgesia is strongly affected by race and socioeconomic status. Anesthesiologists need to recognize this potential barrier when trying to maximize patient comfort and outcome.

5 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although epidural anaesthesia and analgesia have numerous benefits, their effects on postoperative survival are unclear. We therefore undertook a population-based cohort study to determine whether perioperative epidural anaesthesia or analgesia is associated with improved 30-day survival. We used population-based linked administrative databases to do a retrospective cohort study of 259 037 patients, aged 40 years or older, who underwent selected elective intermediate-to-high risk non-cardiac surgical procedures between April 1, 1994, and March 31, 2004, in Ontario, Canada. Propensity-score methods were used to construct a matched-pairs cohort that reduced important baseline differences between patients who received epidural anaesthesia or analgesia as opposed to those that did not. We then determined the association of epidural anaesthesia with 30-day mortality within these matched-pairs. Of the 259 037 patients, 56 556 (22%) received epidural anaesthesia. Within the matched-pairs cohort (n=88 188), epidural anaesthesia was associated with a small reduction in 30-day mortality (1.7%vs 2.0%; relative risk 0.89, 95% CI 0.81-0.98, p=0.02). Epidural anaesthesia and analgesia were associated with a small improvement in 30-day survival, but this effect should be interpreted cautiously. The estimate had borderline significance, despite a large sample size. Its absolute magnitude was also small, corresponding to a number needed to treat of 477. Our study, therefore, does not provide compelling evidence that epidural anaesthesia improves postoperative survival. Nonetheless, our results support the safety of perioperative epidural anaesthesia when used for indications other than improving survival (eg, improving postoperative pain relief, preventing postoperative pulmonary complications).
    The Lancet 09/2008; 372(9638):562-9. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61121-6 · 45.22 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In single-center studies, consultation by an anesthesiologist days to weeks before surgery was associated with reduced patient anxiety, case cancellations on the day of surgery, and duration of hospitalization. Nonetheless, the impact of anesthesia consultation on outcomes in the population remains unclear. We used population-based, linked, administrative databases to conduct a cohort study of patients, aged 40 years and older, who underwent selected elective intermediate- to high-risk noncardiac surgical procedures in Ontario, Canada, between April 1, 1994, and March 31, 2004. Propensity-score methods were used to construct a matched-pairs cohort that resolved important differences between patients who underwent consultation and those who did not. We then determined the association of consultation (within 60 days before surgery) with hospital length of stay and postoperative mortality (30-day and 1-year) rates within the matched pairs. Of the 271 082 patients in the entire cohort, 39% (n = 104 716) underwent anesthesia consultation. The proportion of patients who underwent consultation increased from 19% in 1994 to 53% in 2003. Within the matched-pairs (n = 180 254), consultation was associated with reduced mean hospital length of stay (8.17 days vs 8.52 days; difference, -0.35 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.27 to -0.43; P < .001). Consultation was not associated with reduced mortality at 30 days (relative risk, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.13; P = .36) or 1 year (relative risk, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.02; P = .20). Preoperative anesthesia consultation is associated with reduced length of stay but not with reduced mortality. Future research should evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the increasing use of anesthesia consultation.
    Archives of internal medicine 04/2009; 169(6):595-602. DOI:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.3 · 17.33 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We sought to examine the difference in use of labor epidural analgesia among women from different neighborhood socioeconomic groups. Neighborhood socioeconomic variables from the 2001 Canadian Census were linked to singleton vaginal births from the Niday perinatal database (2004-2006) in Ontario, Canada. Births were divided into income and education groups by quintiles. Generalized estimating equations were employed to evaluate the association between labor epidural and neighborhood socioeconomic status. Supplementary analysis was conducted after stratifying data by hospital types. Compared with those from the richest neighborhood, women from the poorest quintile were the least likely to receive labor epidural analgesia (odds ratio [OR], 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58-0.61). The differences were smallest in teaching hospitals (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.67-0.79) and largest in small community hospitals (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.50-0.64). Similar association was found in neighborhood education quintiles. The use of labor epidural analgesia is decreased with decreasing neighborhood economic and education levels.
    American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 03/2010; 202(3):273.e1-8. DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2009.10.871 · 4.70 Impact Factor
Show more