Impact of an electronic alert system for pediatric sepsis screening a tertiary hospital experience.

This study aimed to assess the potential impact of implementing an electronic alert system (EAS) for systemic inflammatory syndrome (SIRS) and sepsis in pediatric patients mortality. This retrospective study had a pre and post design. We enrolled patients aged ≤ 14 years who were diagnosed with sepsis/severe sepsis upon admission to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) of our tertiary hospital from January 2014 to December 2018. We implemented an EAS for the patients with SIRS/sepsis. The patients who met the inclusion criteria pre-EAS implementation comprised the control group, and the group post-EAS implementation was the experimental group. Mortality was the primary outcome, while length of stay (LOS) and mechanical ventilation in the first hour were the secondary outcomes. Of the 308 enrolled patients, 147 were in the pre-EAS group and 161 in the post-EAS group. In terms of mortality, 44 patients in the pre-EAS group and 28 in the post-EAS group died (p 0.011). The average LOS in the PICU was 7.9 days for the pre-EAS group and 6.8 days for the post-EAS group (p 0.442). Considering the EAS initiation time as the "zero time", early recognition of SIRS and sepsis via the EAS led to faster treatment interventions in post-EAS group, which included fluid boluses with median (25th, 75th percentile) time of 107 (37, 218) min vs. 30 (11,112) min, p < 0.001) and time to initiate antimicrobial therapy median (25th, 75th percentile) of 170.5 (66,320) min vs. 131 (53,279) min, p 0.042). The difference in mechanical ventilation in the first hour of admission was not significant between the groups (25.17% vs. 24.22%, p 0.895). The implementation of the EAS resulted in a statistically significant reduction in the mortality rate among the patients admitted to the PICU in our study. An EAS can play an important role in saving lives and subsequent reduction in healthcare costs. Further enhancement of systematic screening is therefore highly recommended to improve the prognosis of pediatric SIRS and sepsis. The implementation of the EAS, warrants further validation in multicenter or national studies.

A prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial comparing the efficacy of polyethylene glycol versus polyethylene glycol combined with topical diltiazem for treating anal fissure in children.

BACKGROUND: Anal fissure (AF) in children is usually treated with laxatives and/or topical agents such as calcium channel blockers. We hypothesize that owing to the superior efficacy of Polyethylene glycol (PEG) in treating constipation in children, adding diltiazem (DTZ) might not improve healing of AF. METHODS: Children ≤14 years with anal fissure presented to the pediatric surgery clinic between November 2014 and March 2016 were recruited. Randomization was performed to either PEG with DTZ or PEG with placebo. Study personnel, patients, and their families were blinded. Primary outcome was resolution of symptoms. Secondary outcomes were constipation and treatment complications at 12-week follow up. RESULTS: 48 patients were randomized: 24 to PEG + DTZ and 24 to PEG + placebo. Both groups were similar in their baseline characteristics. At week 12, majority of patients' symptoms have improved without significant difference between groups; painful defecation at week 12: 20.8% and 8.3% (p-value 0.41), blood per rectum at week 12: 4.2% and 8.3% (p value 0.58) in the DTZ and placebo groups, respectively. Additionally, there was similar improvement in constipation in both groups. CONCLUSION: PEG alone was associated with similar improvement in anal fissure symptoms in children compared to PEG and topical diltiazem combined. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.