The Effect of Computer Tablets on the Need for Medical Anxiolysis in Children in an Ambulatory Surgical Center.

Background Preoperative anxiety is common in children undergoing surgery. When anxiety is identified or suspected, there are several strategies typically used to manage it. Perhaps the most common is anxiolytic premedication or parental presence at induction. Medications such as midazolam have been associated with adverse effects, such as a slower wakeup, and require timing of administration, while parental presence can be disturbing to the parent and divert the attention of the operating room team. A more recent option is distraction via electronic tablets. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively investigate and quantify any change in the use of midazolam, the most common anxiolytic approach at our institution, and any change in the length of time in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) following the introduction of tablet computers to a pediatric ambulatory surgical center. Methods We conducted an IRB-approved retrospective chart review of 13,790 pediatric patients ages one to 18 undergoing outpatient elective surgeries at the University of Florida (UF) Children's Surgical Center over a five-year period. A univariate analysis was conducted using the Fisher's Exact test and interrupted time series analysis to determine differences between midazolam administration and PACU times, with interruption occurring at tablet implementation. A multivariable analysis and sensitivity analyses were performed to confirm the findings of the univariate analysis. Results On univariate analysis, tablet availability was associated with both a decreased preoperative oral midazolam administration (odds ratio (OR) 0.158, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.140 to 0.179, P-value <0.001) and a decreased PACU length of stay (-17.4 min, 95% CI: -19.6 to -15.3 min, P-value <0.001). The association with decreased preoperative midazolam administration held after multivariable analysis (adjusted OR 0.207, 95% CI: 0.154 to 0.278, P-value <0.001), but PACU length of stay was not statistically significant (-9.1 min, 95% CI: -20.6 to 2.4, P-value = 0.12). These results were confirmed on sensitivity analysis, with tablet availability continuing to be associated with decreased preoperative oral midazolam administration but not with reduced PACU length of stay. Conclusion Our results demonstrate that computer tablets were associated with a significant decrease in the frequency of midazolam administration and consequently may reduce preoperative pediatric anxiety. We did not find an associated change in PACU length of stay following the introduction of tablets. Tablets present a unique distraction alternative to chemical anxiolysis for institutions seeking to reduce medication use in pediatric patients.

Establishing the place in therapy of bilastine in the treatment of allergic rhinitis according to ARIA: evidence review.

BACKGROUND: The ARIA (Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma) guidelines development group examined the properties of oral H(1)-antihistamines and made proposals about an 'optimal' drug. Several criteria should be met by oral H(1)-antihistamines in terms of their pharmacological, and clinical efficacy and safety profiles. OBJECTIVE: Bilastine, a new H(1)-antihistamine, has been approved in 28 European countries for the symptomatic treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria in adults and children older than 12 years. To determine its potential place in therapy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis, this manuscript examines whether bilastine meets the criteria defined in the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI)/ARIA proposals for oral H(1)-antihistamines. METHODS: The optimal properties of oral H(1)-antihistamines and current ARIA recommendations for their use in allergic rhinitis are presented, as well as relevant pharmacological and clinical data for bilastine obtained from the published literature that specifically address the defined criteria. RESULTS: Bilastine is a potent inhibitor of the histamine H(1) receptor. Data from preclinical studies have confirmed its selectivity for the histamine H(1) receptor over other receptors, and demonstrated antihistaminic properties in vitro and in vivo. Bilastine does not interfere with the cytochrome P450 system and is devoid of cardiac side effects. Studies in healthy volunteers and patients have shown that bilastine does not affect driving ability, cardiac conduction or alertness. In large pivotal randomized, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs), bilastine had a favourable safety profile. Bilastine 20 mg once daily improved all nasal and ocular symptoms of allergic rhinitis with greater efficacy than placebo and comparable to that of cetirizine and desloratadine. Moreover, bilastine was shown to improve quality of life, an important outcome of RCTs in allergic diseases. There were no significant changes in laboratory tests, electrocardiograms or vital signs. A potential limitation of this assessment of bilastine is that it is a literature-based review and the findings are dependent upon the quality of the published evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Bilastine meets current EAACI/ARIA criteria for medications used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.