The use of intravenous fluids during labor

Intravenous fluids for reducing the duration of labour in low risk nulliparous women

BACKGROUND

Several factors may influence the progression of normal labour. It has been postulated that the routine administration of intravenous fluids to keep women adequately hydrated during labour may reduce the period of contraction and relaxation of the uterine muscle, and may ultimately reduce the duration of the labour. It has also been suggested that intravenous fluids may reduce caesarean sections (CS) for prolonged labour. However, the routine administration of intravenous fluids to labouring women has not been adequately elucidated although it is a widely-adopted policy, and there is no consensus on the type or volume of fluids that are required, or indeed, whether intravenous fluids are at all necessary. Women may be able to adequately hydrate themselves if they were allowed oral fluids during labour.Furthermore, excessive volumes of intravenous fluids may pose risks to both the mother and her newborn and different fluids are associated with different risks.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether the routine administration of intravenous fluids to low-risk nulliparous labouring women reduces the duration of labour and to evaluate the safety of intravenous fluids on maternal and neonatal health.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (13 February 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of intravenous fluid administration to spontaneously labouring low-risk nulliparous women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine randomised trials with 1781 women. Three trials had more than two treatment arms and were included in more than one comparison.Two trials compared women randomised to receive up to 250 mL/hour of Ringer's lactate solution as well as oral intake versus oral intake only. For women delivering vaginally, there was a reduction in the duration of labour in the Ringer's lactate group (mean difference (MD) -28.86 minutes, 95% confidence interval (CI) -47.41 to -10.30). There was no statistical reduction in the number of CS in the Ringer's lactate group (risk ratio (RR), 0.73 95% CI 0.49 to 1.08).Three trials compared women who received 125 mL/hour versus 250 mL/hour of intravenous fluids with free oral fluids in both groups. Women receiving a greater hourly volume of intravenous fluids (250 mL) had shorter labours than those receiving 125 mL (MD 23.87 minutes, 95% CI 3.72 to 44.02, 256 women). There was no statistically significant reduction in the number of CS in the 250 mL intravenous fluid group (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.54 to1.87, three studies, 334 women). In one study the number of assisted vaginal deliveries was lower in the group receiving 125 mL/hour (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.81).Four trials compared rates of intravenous fluids in women where oral intake was restricted (125 mL/hour versus 250 mL/hour). There was a reduction in the duration of labour in women who received the higher infusion rate (MD 105.61 minutes, 95% CI 53.19 to 158.02); P < 0.0001, however, findings must be interpreted with caution as there was high heterogeneity amongst trials (I(2) = 53%). There was a significant reduction in CS in women receiving the higher rate of intravenous fluid infusion (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.21; P = 0.01). There was no difference identified in the assisted delivery rate (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.40). There was no clear difference between groups in the number of babies admitted to the NICU (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.17).Two trials compared normal saline versus 5% dextrose. Only one reported the mean duration of labour, and there was no strong evidence of a difference between groups (MD -12.00, 95% CI -30.09 to 6.09). A trial reporting the median suggested that the duration was reduced in the dextrose group. There was no significant difference in CS or assisted deliveries (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.43, two studies, 284 women) and (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.63, one study, 93 women) respectively. Only one trial reported on maternal hyponatraemia (serum sodium levels < 135 mmol/L ). For neonatal complications, there was no difference in the admission to NICU) or in low Apgar scores, however 33.3% of babies developed hyponatraemia in the dextrose group compared to 13.3 % in the normal saline group (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.93) (P = 0.03). One trial reported a higher incidence of neonatal hyperbilirubinaemia in the dextrose group of babies. There was no difference in neonatal hypoglycaemic episodes between groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although the administration of intravenous fluids compared with oral intake alone demonstrated a reduction in the duration of labour, this finding emerged from only two trials. The findings of other trials suggest that if a policy of no oral intake is applied, then the duration of labour in nulliparous women may be shortened by the administration of intravenous fluids at a rate of 250 mL/hour rather than 125 mL/hour. However, it may be possible for women to simply increase their oral intake rather than being attached to a drip and we have to consider whether it is justifiable to persist with a policy of 'nil by mouth'. One trial raised concerns about the safety of dextrose and this needs further exploration.None of the trials reported on the evaluation of maternal views of being attached to a drip during their entire labour. Furthermore, there was no objective assessment of dehydration. The evidence from this review does not provide robust evidence to recommend routine administration of intravenous fluids. Interpreting the results from trials was hampered by the low number of trials contributing data and by variation between trials. In trials where oral fluids were not restricted there was considerable variation in the amount of oral fluid consumed by women in different arms of the same trial, and between different trials. In addition, results from trials were not consistent and risk of bias varied. Some important research questions were addressed by single trials only, and important outcomes relating to maternal and infant morbidity were frequently not reported.

A randomized controlled trial of the effect of intrapartum intravenous fluid management on breastfed newborn weight loss

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of conservative versus usual intrapartum intravenous (IV) fluid management for low-risk women receiving epidural analgesia on weight loss in breastfed newborns.

DESIGN

A randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

A tertiary perinatal center in a large urban setting.

SAMPLE

Women experiencing uncomplicated pregnancies who planned to have epidural analgesia and to breastfeed.

METHODS

Healthy pregnant women were randomized to receive an IV epidural preload volume of <500 mLs continuing at an hourly rate of 75-100 mL/h (conservative care) or an epidural preload volume of ≥500 mLs and an hourly rate >125 mL/h (usual care). The primary study outcome was breastfed newborn weight loss >7% prior to hospital discharge. Secondary study outcomes included breastfeeding exclusivity, referral to outpatient breastfeeding clinic support, and delayed discharge. Other outcomes were admission to the neonatal intensive care unit and cord blood pH <7.25.

RESULTS

Two hundred women participated (100 in the conservative care and 100 in the usual care groups). Forty-eight of 100 infants in the usual care group and 44 of the 100 infants in the conservative care group lost >7% of their birth weight prior to discharge, p < 0.52 RR 0.92 [0.68-1.24].

CONCLUSION

A policy of restricted IV fluids did not affect newborn weight loss. Women and their care providers should be reassured that the volumes of IV fluid <2500 mLs are unlikely to have a clinically meaningful effect on breastfed newborn weight loss >7%. Exploratory analyses suggest that breastfed newborn weight loss increases when intrapartum volumes infused are >2500 mLs. Care providers are encouraged to consider volumes of IV fluid infused intrapartum as a factor that may have contributed to early newborn weight loss in the first 48 h of life.

An observational study of associations among maternal fluids during parturition, neonatal output, and breastfed newborn weight loss

BACKGROUND

Newborn weight measurements are used as a key indicator of breastfeeding adequacy. The purpose of this study was to explore non-feeding factors that might be related to newborn weight loss. The relationship between the intravenous fluids women receive during parturition (the act of giving birth, including time in labour or prior to a caesarean section) and their newborn's weight loss during the first 72 hours postpartum was the primary interest.

METHODS

In this observational cohort study, we collected data about maternal oral and IV fluids during labour or before a caesarean section. Participants (n = 109) weighed their newborns every 12 hours for the first three days then daily to Day 14, and they weighed neonatal output (voids and stools) for three days.

RESULTS

At 60 hours (nadir), mean newborn weight loss was 6.57% (SD 2.51; n = 96, range 1.83-13.06%). When groups, based on maternal fluids, were compared (≤1200 mls [n = 21] versus > 1200 [n = 53]), newborns lost 5.51% versus 6.93% (p = 0.03), respectively. For the first 24 hours, bivariate analyses show positive relationships between a) neonatal output and percentage of newborn weight lost (r(96) = 0.493, p < 0.001); and b) maternal IV fluids (final 2 hours) and neonatal output (r(42) = 0.383, p = 0.012). At 72 hours, there was a positive correlation between grams of weight lost and all maternal fluids (r(75) = 0.309, p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Timing and amounts of maternal IV fluids appear correlated to neonatal output and newborn weight loss. Neonates appear to experience diuresis and correct their fluid status in the first 24 hours. We recommend a measurement at 24 hours, instead of birth weight, for baseline when assessing weight change. Because practices can differ between maternity settings, we further suggest that clinicians should collect and analyze data from dyads in their care to determine an optimal baseline measurement.

Implementing the evidence-based change in perinatal and neonatal nursing

Perinatal nursing and neonatal nursing both have a scientific base upon which to base care, and great strides have been made in translating research into practice in both of these specialties. However, barriers still exist for nurses in implementing evidence-based perinatal and neonatal care. Patient, provider, and systems factors that influence how evidence is translated into practice are discussed. Suggestions for how to implement practice change when evidence is inadequate are also discussed. Finally, examples of how the scientific base for both perinatal nursing and neonatal nursing can be more efficiently implemented are outlined on the basis of the state of implementation science in the United States today.

Interventions for ketosis during labour

BACKGROUND

In labour, ketosis (the elevation of ketone bodies in the blood) is a common occurrence, due to increased physical stress, which is often compounded by reduced oral intake. The effect of ketosis on the mother and baby during labour is not clear, therefore, there is uncertainty as to whether ketosis is a normal physiological response or whether women with ketosis in labour require intervention (such as intravenous fluids or increased oral intake) for maternal and infant wellbeing. This uncertainty has resulted in differences in opinion and practice by those providing care for women in labour.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects on maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes of intravenous fluids or increased oral intake administered to women in labour for the treatment of ketosis compared with no intervention (defined as no oral intake, ice chips only, or oral intake on demand) and to also assess the effects of different types of intravenous fluids administered.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (January 2008), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1950 to January 2007), EMBASE (1988 to January 2007) and CINAHL (1982 to 2007).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published and unpublished randomised trials in which additional oral intake or intravenous fluids, or both, were used for the treatment of women with ketosis in labour.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed potentially eligible trials. The authors sought additional information on trial methods and outcome data to enable consideration of eligibility of studies. However, at the time of the review, no information was received.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six trials as potentially eligible for inclusion in this review. All six studies were excluded. Therefore no trials are included in this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no information on which to base practice in the treatment of women with ketosis during labour. Further research is required to identify more clearly the association between ketosis in labour and pregnancy outcome. Future trials should examine the effects of no interventions and different types of intravenous and oral fluids on these clinically important outcomes, and include women's perception and satisfaction with care during labour and birth.

The evidence supporting nursing management of labor

Although nursing practice is responsive to research findings, the practice site in which a nurse works has an impact on the ability to incorporate research changes into practice in a timely fashion. This review of the evidence base for nursing management of labor care focuses on care that typically falls within the nurses' domain and highlights the evidence in five areas in which there is research on patient preferences. These include management of admission and of progression during the first stage of labor, fetal monitoring, care and comfort practices during labor, and the management of second-stage labor. Directions for achieving progress toward practice change are highlighted.

Measuring the energy spent by parturient women in fasting and in ingesting caloric replacement (Honey)

This research aims to measure the energy spending in parturient women of low gestation risk. Participants were selected randomly and submitted to fasting (n=15; Group I) or honey ingestion (n=15; Group II). Data were collected by means of capillary blood values and heart frequency monitoring. The paired t-test with a 5% significance level and Tukey's method were used in statistical analysis. The results showed that honey ingestion did not promote an overload in the mother's glucose; the lactate response demonstrated that the substrate offered was well used; the cardiorespiratory rate demonstrated good performance for both groups; the total energy spent during labor demonstrated that carbohydrate ingestion exerts significant influence, improving maternal anaerobic performance; the group which remained in fasting presented, immediately after labor, higher levels of lactate, showing the organism's efforts to compensate for the energy spent.

Midwifery dilemma: to fast or feed the labouring woman Part 2: the case supporting oral intake in labour

This article has, so far, explored the phenomenon of aspiration associated with obstetric general anaesthesia (see Part 1). Part 2 examines the literature pertaining to the history of dietary regimes for labour and the physiological and psychological effect of restricting or allowing food and fluids during labour. The increasing trend among some health professionals to allow food and fluids during labour and research conducted to investigate the effect of the labouring woman's oral intake on the labour and birth outcomes is also discussed.

Policy or tradition: oral intake in labour

Oral intake restrictions have varied over time and around the world with written hospital policies for this issue often being non-existent. As there are differing views on this issue within hospitals overseas, a survey was conducted of 109 maternity units in New South Wales, Australia during early 2000 to identify the trends across the state. In New South Wales 81.7% of hospitals did not have a written policy for oral intake in labour. The remaining 18.3% had written policies which varied in their oral intake allowances from ice only to whatever women feel like eating and drinking. Of the 109 hospitals in this survey 60.5% leave food and fluid requirements to the individual woman's discretion, providing they have no increased risk of general anaesthetic.

Clinical decision-making regarding intravenous hydration in normal labor in a birth center setting

Intravenous hydration (IVH) in normal labor is used routinely in most hospital settings despite the lack of support from recent research. However, it is not used routinely at one in-hospital, Alternative Birthing Center (ABC), in the Midwest. The purpose of this study was to explore and describe the criteria and perspectives of the certified nurse-midwives (CNMs) and nurses (RNs) in their decision-making process toward nonroutine use of IVH. In-depth interviews with five CNMs and four RNs that work in the ABC provided insight into how they balanced patient preference, research-based knowledge, and clinical judgments, in making decisions about IVH. The RNs were slightly more in favor of IVH than the CNMs, but not because of philosophic differences. Rather, the different roles and responsibilities of CNMs and RNs seemed to be most important. CNMs had a stronger commitment to client preferences, whereas RNs were more concerned about their responsibility for efficiently starting IVs prior to an emergency situation. Understanding professional differences in the decision-making process for IVH can enhance clinical functioning of the caregiving team by helping CNMs anticipate and address potential conflicts.

Fasting in labor: relic or requirement

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the scientific literature on restrictions of eating and drinking during labor.

DATA SOURCES

Computerized searches in MEDLINE and CINAHL, as well as historical articles, texts, and references cited in published works. Key words used in the searches included anesthesia in labor, childbirth, eating and drinking, epidural, fasting, fasting in labor, fasting and pregnancy, gastric aspiration, gastric emptying, intrapartum, intravenous fluids, i.v.s in labor, ketonuria, ketonuria in labor, parturition, pregnancy, and stomach contents in labor.

STUDY SELECTION

Articles from indexed journals, excluding single-person case studies.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were extracted and organized under the following headings: historical review, effects of fasting on labor, research on maternal mortality/morbidity from aspiration, research on gastric emptying in labor, intravenous hydration in labor, and implications for nursing research.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Research does not support restricting food and fluids in labor to prevent gastric aspiration. Restricting oral intake during labor has unexpected negative outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Little is known about the differences in labor progress, birth outcomes, and neonatal status between mothers who consume food and/or fluids during labor and women who fast during labor. Research also is needed on the effects of epidural opioids on gastric emptying, nutritional requirements during labor, and the physiologic implications of fasting during labor. Fasting during labor is a tradition that continues with no evidence of improved outcomes for mother or newborn. Many facilities (especially birth centers) do not restrict eating and drinking. Across the United States, most hospitals restrict intake, usually to ice chips and sips of clear liquids. Anesthesia studies have focused on gastric emptying, measured by various techniques, presuming that delayed gastric emptying predisposes women to aspiration. Narcotic analgesia delays gastric emptying, but results are conflicting on the effect of normal labor and of epidural anesthesia on gastric emptying. The effect of fasting in labor on the fetus and newborn and on the course of labor has not been studied adequately. Only one study evaluated the probable risk of maternal aspiration mortality, which is approximately 7 in 10 million births.

Intravenous therapy for women in labor: implementation of a practice change

BACKGROUND

Intravenous therapy for women in labor has been routinely administered in many North American hospitals since the 1950s. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a change in intravenous therapy practice.

METHODS

The evaluation study, using a posttest, quasi-experimental design, examined the responses of women in labor and nurses to a questionnaire. Proxy prestudy cohort data were used for comparison of some patient outcomes. The convenience sample comprised 219 women admitted to the labor and delivery unit of a community hospital in Toronto, Ontario, between August and October 1997.

RESULTS

Under the new intravenous therapy protocol, 26 percent of the women in labor did not receive intravenous therapy compared with 100 percent under the old protocol. The primary reasons for therapy were to enable administration of prescribed medication and bolus intravenous administration associated with epidural anesthesia. At the first after-delivery void, 61 percent of study women-65 percent of those who received intravenous therapy and 50 percent of those who received no intravenous therapy-tested negative for ketonuria. All 119 comments from nurses indicated comfort with their judgments related to the initiation of intravenous therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The change in the intravenous therapy protocol was supported by the study findings. Nurses should increase patient education about drinking and eating adequately throughout labor if appropriate, and resuming adequate fluid and food intake as quickly as possible after childbirth.

Parturition and fetal adaptation

The fetus as "patient" during labor and birth has become an increasingly important concept during the past 20 years. However, what is understood about fetal status during labor and how the fetus prepares for its approaching separation from its mother? Current information indicates that not only is the term fetus well prepared for the adaptation to extrauterine life, but this transition is facilitated by normal labor.

Outcomes of care in birth centers. The National Birth Center Study

We studied 11,814 women admitted for labor and delivery to 84 free-standing birth centers in the United States and followed their course and that of their infants through delivery or transfer to a hospital and for at least four weeks thereafter. The women were at lower-than-average risk of a poor outcome of pregnancy, according to many but not all of the recognized demographic and behavioral risk factors. Among the women, 70.7 percent had only minor complications or none; 7.9 percent had serious emergency complications during labor and delivery or soon thereafter, such as thick meconium or severe shoulder dystocia. One woman in six (15.8 percent) was transferred to a hospital; 2.4 percent had emergency transfers. Twenty-nine percent of nulliparous women and only 7 percent of parous women were transferred, but the frequency of emergency transfers was the same. The rate of cesarean section was 4.4 percent. There were no maternal deaths. The overall intrapartum and neonatal mortality rate was 1.3 per 1000 births. The rates of infant mortality and low Apgar scores were similar to those reported in large studies of low-risk hospital births. We conclude that birth centers offer a safe and acceptable alternative to hospital confinement for selected pregnant women, particularly those who have previously had children, and that such care leads to relatively few cesarean sections.

Functional assessment of infant breastfeeding patterns

As breastfeeding rates have increased in the United States, the need has arisen for coordinated approaches to the assessment of normal and problem situations. Since some difficulties are related to the manner in which baby feeds, guidelines are discussed for the visual assessment of breastfeeding. These include the when, why, and how of assessing seven common situations or problems: initial breastfeeding experiences, inadequate infant weight gain or low milk intake, insufficient milk supply (real or perceived), nipple problems, latch-on and sucking disorganization, high-risk situations, and the good baby syndrome.