PDF herunterladen
Am J Perinatol 2014; 31(06): 455-462
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1351661
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Effect of Hydration on Spontaneous Labor Outcomes in Nulliparous Pregnant Women: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Three Methods

Rodney K. Edwards
1   Division of Maternal and Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama, Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, Alabama
,
Christine A. Reed
2   Perinatal Clinical Trials Research Center, The Children's Hospital, Aurora, Colorado
,
Kathryn S. Villano
3   Regional Obstetric Consultants, Jacksonville, Florida
,
Jennifer L. Holmes
4   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Intermountain Salt Lake Clinic, Salt Lake City, Utah
,
Suhong Tong
5   Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, Colorado
,
Jill K. Davies
6   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Denver Health Medical Center, Denver, Colorado
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

23. April 2013

13. Juni 2013

Publikationsdatum:
24. Juli 2013 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the effect of mode and amount of fluid hydration during labor.

Study Design The authors conducted a randomized controlled trial of uncomplicated nulliparous women in spontaneous labor at 36 weeks or more gestational age. Women were randomized to receive lactated Ringer solution with 5% dextrose at (1) 125 mL/h intravenously with limited oral intake, (2) 250 mL/h intravenously with limited oral intake, or (3) 25 mL/h intravenously with ad libitum oral intake of clear liquids. Results were analyzed by intent-to-treat analysis.

Results A total of 311 out of 324 women were available for analysis. Groups 1 (n = 105), 2 (n = 105), and 3 (n = 101) above did not differ significantly for mean labor duration (11.6 ± 5.9, 11.4 ± 5.5, and 11.5 ± 5.9 hours, respectively; p = 0.998), proportion of women in labor > 12 hours (all groups 41%; p = 0.998), proportion receiving oxytocin augmentation (59, 60, and 57%, respectively; p = 0.923), or proportion delivered by cesarean (22, 17, and 17%, respectively; p = 0.309). Indications for cesarean were similar between groups. No cases of pulmonary edema, maternal aspiration, or perinatal mortality occurred.

Conclusion Although apparently safe, neither increased intravenous hydration nor oral hydration during labor improves labor performance.

Keywords

labor - labor dystocia - hydration - oral hydration
 

  • References

  • 1 Garite TJ, Weeks J, Peters-Phair K, Pattillo C, Brewster WR. A randomized controlled trial of the effect of increased intravenous hydration on the course of labor in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 183 (6) 1544-1548
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Maughan RJ, Noakes TD. Fluid replacement and exercise stress. A brief review of studies on fluid replacement and some guidelines for the athlete. Sports Med 1991; 12 (1) 16-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Noakes TD. Fluid replacement during exercise. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 1993; 21: 297-330
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Sommer PA, Norr K, Roberts J. Clinical decision-making regarding intravenous hydration in normal labor in a birth center setting. J Midwifery Womens Health 2000; 45 (2) 114-121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Ludka LM, Roberts CC. Eating and drinking in labor. A literature review. J Nurse Midwifery 1993; 38 (4) 199-207
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 O'Reilly SA, Hoyer PJP, Walsh E. Low-risk mothers. Oral intake and emesis in labor. J Nurse Midwifery 1993; 38 (4) 228-235
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Rooks JP, Weatherby NL, Ernst EK, Stapleton S, Rosen D, Rosenfield A. Outcomes of care in birth centers. The National Birth Center Study. N Engl J Med 1989; 321 (26) 1804-1811
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ , et al. Births: final data for 2009. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2011; 60 (1) 1-70
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 MacDorman MF, Menacker F, Declercq E. Cesarean birth in the United States: epidemiology, trends, and outcomes. Clin Perinatol 2008; 35 (2) 293-307 , v
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics. ACOG Practice Bulletin Number 49, December 2003: Dystocia and augmentation of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 102 (6) 1445-1454
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Gifford DS, Morton SC, Fiske M, Keesey J, Keeler E, Kahn KL. Lack of progress in labor as a reason for cesarean. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 95 (4) 589-595
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Spong CY, Berghella V, Wenstrom KD, Mercer BM, Saade GR. Preventing the first cesarean delivery: summary of a joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Workshop. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 120 (5) 1181-1193
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Eslamian L, Marsoosi V, Pakneeyat Y. Increased intravenous fluid intake and the course of labor in nulliparous women. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2006; 93 (2) 102-105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Coco A, Derksen-Schrock A, Coco K, Raff T, Horst M, Hussar E. A randomized trial of increased intravenous hydration in labor when oral fluid is unrestricted. Fam Med 2010; 42 (1) 52-56
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kavitha A, Chacko KP, Thomas E , et al. A randomized controlled trial to study the effect of IV hydration on the duration of labor in nulliparous women. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012; 285 (2) 343-346
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar