A Practical Guide to Successful Rehydration

Proctoclysis for rehydration in children - A scoping review and a pilot survey among medical doctors

Although proctoclysis (enema) is a historically proven, safe and cost-effective rehydration method that needs little training for users and can effectively replace intravenous hydration in different care settings, it is an uncommon choice for hydration in children with fever and is often missing in official guidelines. To evaluate the usefulness of proctoclysis, this study provides a scoping review of the existing literature. The matched literature was labelled in 5 categories, identifying 6 indication fields that are emphasized in the literature on rectal rehydration. The analysis showed that proctoclysis is mostly used in the context of diagnostic procedures, constipation or in the treatment of a gastrointestinal disease. It is also described as a quick, safe and cost-effective intervention for fluid replacement in emergency, critical care or resource-scarce settings. There are also socio-cultural variations in its use Additionally, we performed a survey on attitudes and experience of medical doctors towards proctoclysis based on a semi-structured questionnaire. In the survey, we analysed the experience of 35 medical doctors from 8 countries. Although we found a general acceptance of enema as beneficial in both hospitalized patients and in home care, doctors expressed the need for more experience with enema and the need for more education materials in order to effectively perform the procedure. Based on our findings, we suggest that further research is necessary examining the attitude towards proctoclysis among parents, nurses and doctors. Enema can have a considerable clinical advantage during home care for gastroenteritis or other infectious diseases with fever to prevent insufficient oral fluid intake resulting in a negative fluid balance. Risks and safety issues are rare and should be considered. However, due to its low level of social acceptability in order to reduce refusal rate, more education is necessary for both medical providers and parents.

[Nasogastric rehydration for treating children with gastroenteritis]

INTRODUCTION

When oral rehydration is not feasible, enteral rehydration via the nasogastric route has been the ESPGHAN recommended method of rehydration since 2008, rather than intravenous rehydration (IVR), for children with acute gastroenteritis. However, these recommendations are rarely followed in France. Since 2011, in case of failure of oral rehydration, enteral rehydration has been used as a first-line therapy in the Children's Emergency Department at the Grenoble-Alpes University Hospital.

PURPOSE

The aims of the study were to compare the length of the hospital stay, the duration of initial rehydration, and the incidence of complications and failure with the use of enteral nasogastric versus intravenous rehydration.

METHODS

This study compared two cohorts of children (<3 years of age) with mild-to-moderate dehydration caused by acute gastroenteritis and failure of rehydration via the oral route. The first group (winter 2010-2011) was managed according to the previous protocol (intravenous rehydration). The second group (winter 2011-2012) was managed according the new protocol (nasogastric tube rehydration [NGR]). The rest of the gastroenteritis management was identical in both groups.

RESULTS

A total of 132 children were included, 65 were treated with nasogastric tube rehydration (NGR) and 67 with intravenous rehydration. There was a significant reduction in the duration of hospitalization in the post-emergency unit in the NGR group: 23.6h vs 40.1h (P<0.05). The duration of initial rehydration was also significantly reduced (10.5h vs 22.0h). There was no significant difference regarding serious adverse events. However, the NGR group presented more mild adverse events (22 vs 7, P<0.05) and more treatment failures (15.3% vs 3%, P=0.013).

CONCLUSION

Nasogastric rehydration reduces the duration of rehydration and the length of the hospital stay without increasing the incidence of serious adverse events for dehydrated children hospitalized for acute gastroenteritis.

What do Clinicians Perceive as a Successful "Trial of Fluids"?: A Secondary Assessment of a Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to explore physician perceptions of the amount of fluid that demonstrates a successful "trial of fluids" (adequate fluid intake) in the emergency department in children who have had insufficient fluid intake at home.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of a randomized placebo-controlled trial of viscous lidocaine versus placebo in children aged 6 months to 8 years with acute infectious ulcerative mouth conditions (gingivostomatitis, ulcerative pharyngitis, or hand foot and mouth disease) and poor oral fluid intake. We measured the amount of fluid ingested in 60 minutes after administration of the intervention and related physician perception of adequate intake to measured intake. Given that there was little difference in oral intake between the treatment groups, the 2 arms were pooled for this analysis.

RESULTS

One hundred participants were recruited (50 per treatment group), all of whom completed the 60-minute trial period. At baseline, 72% were mildly dehydrated, 21% were not dehydrated, and 5% were moderately dehydrated. The participants drank a median of 8.6 mL/kg (interquartile range [IQR], 3.7-14). Clinicians perceived 58% of the participants to have an adequate intake within the first hour after intervention. The median consumption of those whose oral intake was deemed as adequate was 12.6 mL/kg (IQR, 9.4-18.4); for those whose oral intake was not deemed adequate, the median consumption was 2.7 mL/kg (IQR, 0.7-5.3) (rank sum, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In children undergoing trial of fluids, we found that most clinicians perceived a fluid intake greater than 9 mL/kg as adequate and lower than 5 mL/kg as inadequate.

Disidratazione acuta da gastroenterite nei lattanti

Il bambino sotto 1 anno e, soprattutto, di meno di 6 mesi è ad alto rischio di disidratazione, la cui causa principale è una gastroenterite acuta, soprattutto di origine virale. La gestione di una disidratazione da gastroenterite ha due componenti: la sua correzione e il rapido ripristino della normale perfusione tissutale e il mantenimento dei fabbisogni di acqua e di nutrienti, per limitare al massimo il deficit energetico. La valutazione della gravità della disidratazione è l’elemento chiave che guiderà la terapia. La perdita di peso, espressa in percentuale di peso corporeo prima dell’episodio di disidratazione, è il metodo di riferimento, ma è spesso difficile o impossibile da ottenere. Inoltre, i segni clinici, come l’alterazione dell’aspetto generale, l’allungamento del tempo di riempimento capillare, il riconoscimento di una plica cutanea persistente, gli occhi infossati, una secchezza delle mucose e la mancanza di lacrime, sono i principali elementi che permettono di valutare la gravità della disidratazione. Il trattamento si basa sulla rapida correzione del deficit del settore extracellulare. Un’espansione volemica di 20 ml/kg di una soluzione isotonica somministrata per via endovenosa o intraossea può essere necessaria nella fase iniziale nei casi più gravi (disidratazione > 10%). In tutti gli altri casi, la reidratazione per via orale per correggere il deficit di acqua in 4-6 ore è la tecnica di scelta, che si è dimostrata efficace, sicura e veloce. Essa utilizza delle soluzioni di reidratazione adattate che soddisfano criteri specifici. Il loro utilizzo precoce è la prevenzione più efficace delle forme gravi. L’allattamento al seno non deve essere interrotto e l’alimentazione artificiale deve essere ripresa da 4 a 6 ore dopo l’inizio della reidratazione. La vaccinazione contro i rotavirus prima dei 6 mesi è fortemente raccomandata.

Health care provider and caregiver preferences regarding nasogastric and intravenous rehydration

OBJECTIVE

Despite evidence supporting its use, nasogastric rehydration is rarely used in North America. We conducted a prospective, cross-sectional, 3-phase study to evaluate current perspectives.

METHODS

We compared the proportions of respondents in favor of nasogastric (as opposed to intravenous) rehydration, should oral rehydration fail, between clinicians and caregivers. Phase 1: caregivers of children aged 3 to 48 months, who presented to a Canadian pediatric emergency department with symptoms of gastroenteritis, were invited to complete a survey. Phase 2: phase 1 participants administered intravenous or nasogastric rehydration had the procedure observed and outcome data recorded. Phase 3: pediatric emergency medicine physicians, fellows, and nurses completed a survey.

RESULTS

Four hundred thirty-five children-parent dyads and 113 health care providers participated. If oral rehydration were to fail, 10% (47 of 435) of caregivers and 14% (16 of 113) of clinicians would choose nasogastric rehydration (difference = 3.4%; 95% confidence interval: -2.8 to 11.4). Caregivers were more familiar with the term intravenous than nasogastric rehydration (80% vs 20%; P < .001). Sixty-four children (15%) received intravenous rehydration; none received nasogastric rehydration. Participating nurses have inserted 90 (interquartile range: 25-150) intravenous cannulas compared with 4 (interquartile range: 2-10) nasogastric tubes during the preceding 6 months (P < .001). After a brief educational intervention, the proportion recommending nasogastric rehydration increased to 27% (117 of 435) among caregivers (P < .001) and 43% (49 of 113) among health care providers (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In keeping with caregiver desires, health care providers in a Canadian emergency department employ intravenous rehydration when oral rehydration fails. Enhanced change management strategies will be required for nasogastric rehydration to become adopted in this environment.

Pediatric rapid fluid resuscitation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Intravenous and enteral fluid resuscitation are frequently used therapies in the management of pediatric patients in emergency departments and critical care settings. Any state of intravascular fluid deficit, ranging from mild dehydration due to gastroenteritis to fulminant septic shock, requires careful assessment and early restoration of hemodynamic stability. Rapid fluid resuscitation has gained increased recognition since the most recent pediatric shock management guidelines. We sought to review the evidence for rapid fluid resuscitation and to outline its clinical indications, implementation, and potential associated risks.

RECENT FINDINGS

Rapid fluid resuscitation benefits pediatric patients with severe dehydration or signs of shock. Studies have proven the modality to be safe and efficacious and to reduce morbidity and mortality. Initial and frequent clinical assessments are key in reducing potential complications of overhydration or clinically significant electrolyte disturbances. Rapid enteral rehydration may be used in the uncomplicated, mildly to moderately dehydrated patient. Antiemetics may facilitate rehydration efforts by limiting further fluid losses.

SUMMARY

Rapid fluid resuscitation is most commonly used for children with moderate-to-severe dehydration, or for patients in shock to restore circulation. Concerns regarding potential for fluid overload and electrolyte disturbances and regarding the method of rehydration (i.e., enteral versus parenteral) raise some debate about the safety and efficacy of rapid fluid resuscitation in the pediatric patient. Recent studies show that early, aggressive fluid resuscitation of up to 60 ml/kg within 1-2 h may be necessary to replenish circulating intravascular fluid volume. Complications of severe electrolyte disturbances, cerebral edema, or uncontrolled hemorrhage are uncommon and can often be avoided with early clinical assessment and reassessments throughout the resuscitation. In the mildly to moderately dehydrated child, enteral fluid resuscitation with the aid of an antiemetic such as ondansetron can be as effective and efficient as intravenous fluid resuscitation.