Food and beverages in labor. Part II: The effects of cessation of oral intake during labor

Restricting oral fluid and food intake during labour

BACKGROUND

Restricting fluids and foods during labour is common practice across many birth settings with some women only being allowed sips of water or ice chips. Restriction of oral intake may be unpleasant for some women, and may adversely influence their experience of labour.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of oral fluid or food restriction during labour.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2013) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of restricting fluids and food for women in labour compared with women free to eat and drink.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 19 studies of which we included five, involving 3130 women. We excluded eight studies, one awaits classification and five are ongoing studies. All the included studies looked at women in active labour and at low risk of potentially requiring a general anaesthetic. One study looked at complete restriction versus giving women the freedom to eat and drink at will; two studies looked at water only versus giving women specific fluids and foods and two studies looked at water only versus giving women carbohydrate drinks.When comparing any restriction of fluids and food versus women given some nutrition in labour, the meta-analysis was dominated by one study undertaken in a highly medicalised environment. There were no statistically significant differences identified in: caesarean section (average risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 1.25, five studies, 3103 women), operative vaginal births (average RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.10, five studies, 3103 women) and Apgar scores less than seven at five minutes (average RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.68, four studies, 2902 infants), nor in any of the other outcomes assessed. Women's views were not assessed. The pooled data were insufficient to assess the incidence of Mendelson's syndrome, an extremely rare outcome. Other comparisons showed similar findings, except one study did report a significant increase in caesarean sections for women taking carbohydrate drinks in labour compared with water only, but these results should be interpreted with caution as the sample size was small.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Since the evidence shows no benefits or harms, there is no justification for the restriction of fluids and food in labour for women at low risk of complications. No studies looked specifically at women at increased risk of complications, hence there is no evidence to support restrictions in this group of women. Conflicting evidence on carbohydrate solutions means further studies are needed and it is critical in any future studies to assess women's views.

Restricting oral fluid and food intake during labour

BACKGROUND

Restricting fluids and foods during labour is common practice across many birth settings with some women only being allowed sips of water or ice chips. Restriction of oral intake may be unpleasant for some women, and may adversely influence their experience of labour.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of oral fluid or food restriction during labour.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (April 2009).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of restricting fluids and food for women in labour compared with women free to eat and drink.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified five studies (3130 women). All studies looked at women in active labour and at low risk of potentially requiring a general anaesthetic. One study looked at complete restriction versus giving women the freedom to eat and drink at will; two studies looked at water only versus giving women specific fluids and foods and two studies looked at water only versus giving women carbohydrate drinks.When comparing any restriction of fluids and food versus women given some nutrition in labour, the meta-analysis was dominated by one study undertaken in a highly medicalised environment. There were no statistically significant differences identified in: caesarean section (average risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 1.25, five studies, 3103 women), operative vaginal births (average RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.10, five studies, 3103 women) and Apgar scores less than seven at five minutes (average RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.68, three studies, 2574 infants), nor in any of the other outcomes assessed. Women's views were not assessed. The pooled data were insufficient to assess the incidence of Mendelson's syndrome, an extremely rare outcome. Other comparisons showed similar findings, except one study did report a significant increase in caesarean sections for women taking carbohydrate drinks in labour compared with water only, but these results should be interpreted with caution as the sample size was small.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Since the evidence shows no benefits or harms, there is no justification for the restriction of fluids and food in labour for women at low risk of complications. No studies looked specifically at women at increased risk of complications, hence there is no evidence to support restrictions in this group of women. Conflicting evidence on carbohydrate solutions means further studies are needed and it is critical in any future studies to assess women's views.

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.

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.

Eating and drinking in labor: the influence of caregiver advice on women's behavior

BACKGROUND

Although there is much debate about eating and drinking during labor, little scientific data about its influence on the course of labor exist. In The Netherlands, most midwives and obstetricians allow women to eat and drink during normal labor. The objective of this study was to examine whether or not women were actively advised to eat and drink and if this advice affected eating and drinking behavior.

METHODS

A randomly selected group of midwives and obstetricians from across The Netherlands identified 211 consecutive nulliparous women to participate in the study. In a questionnaire with open-ended questions, women were asked after their delivery whether or not they were advised about eating and drinking during labor, and if so, about the nature of this advice and what they had consumed. Data were analyzed at the Leyenburg Hospital in The Hague.

RESULTS

Sixty-six percent of the women were not given advice about eating and drinking during labor. Women who were given advice usually followed it. In the total group, 37 percent of the women had intake other than water and of these, 75 percent ate solid food. After adjusting for other prognostic factors, the incidence of an instrumental delivery due to a nonprogressing second stage was lower in women with caloric intake (13% vs 24%, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

The study design did not enable us to draw conclusions about the cause and effect between caloric intake and labor progress. Scientific data with respect to the giving of evidence-based advice about eating and drinking during labor are lacking. Should such advice become available, women are likely to follow it.

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.