Oral rehydration therapy versus intravenous rehydration therapy in the first 12 h following hospitalization for hyperemesis gravidarum: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate oral rehydration therapy (ORT) compared with intravenous rehydration therapy (IVT) in the early inpatient management of hyperemesis gravidarum (HG).

METHODS

A total of 124 women hospitalized for HG from February 10, 2021 till January 6, 2023 were randomized to ORT (n = 61) or IVT (n = 63) for an initial 12 h. Inclusion criteria includes women older than 18 years, with a viable intrauterine pregnancy less than 14 weeks at their first hospitalization for HG with ketonuria of at least 2+. Primary outcomes were (1) satisfaction score with allocated intervention, (2) weight change, and (3) ketonuria change at 12 h. Secondary outcomes included vomiting frequency, nausea score, serial vital signs, hematocrit and electrolyte levels at 12 h, deviation from treatment protocol (cross-over therapy), participant recommendation of allocated treatment to a friend, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Primary outcomes of (1) participant satisfaction score (on a 0-10 visual numerical rating scale) was 7 (interquartile range [IQR] 5-8) versus 9 (IQR 8-10), P < 0.001; (2) weight gain was 293 ± 780 g versus 948 ± 758 g, P < 0.001; and (3) ketonuria improvement was 50/61 (82.0%) versus 49/63 (77.8%) (relative risk [RR] 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-1.26, P = 0.561) for ORT versus IVT, respectively. For secondary outcomes, vomiting frequency was 2.6 ± 2.7 versus 1.1 ± 1.4 episodes (P < 0.001), participant cross-over rate to opposing treatment 20/61 (32.8%) versus 0/63 (0%) (P < 0.001) (in the 12-h study period) and participant recommendation of allocated treatment to a friend rate 24/61 (39.3%) versus 61/63 (96.8%) (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.30-0.56, P < 0.001) for ORT versus IVT, respectively. By hospital discharge, 31/61 (50.8%) of women allocated to ORT had required IVT. Other secondary outcomes of serial assessments of nausea score and vital signs, hematocrit and electrolyte levels, and length of hospital stay were not different.

CONCLUSIONS

ORT was inferior to IVT in two primary outcomes and three secondary outcomes. Cross-over rate to intravenous therapy from oral therapy was 50.8% by hospital discharge. Intravenous rehydration therapy should remain as first-line rehydration therapy in the early inpatient treatment of HG.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The present study was registered in ISRCTN registry on December 6, 2020 with trial identification number: ISRCTN 40152556 (https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN40152556). The first participant was recruited on February 10, 2021.

Early enteral tube feeding in optimizing treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum: the Maternal and Offspring outcomes after Treatment of HyperEmesis by Refeeding (MOTHER) randomized controlled trial

Background: Hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) leads to dehydration, poor nutritional intake, and weight loss. HG has been associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes such as low birth weight. Information about the potential effectiveness of treatments for HG is limited.Objective: We hypothesized that in women with HG, early enteral tube feeding in addition to standard care improves birth weight.Design: We performed a multicenter, open-label randomized controlled trial [Maternal and Offspring outcomes after Treatment of HyperEmesis by Refeeding (MOTHER)] in 19 hospitals in the Netherlands. A total of 116 women hospitalized for HG between 5 and 20 wk of gestation were randomly allocated to enteral tube feeding for ≥7 d in addition to standard care with intravenous rehydration and antiemetic treatment or to standard care alone. Women were encouraged to continue tube feeding at home. On the basis of our power calculation, a sample size of 120 women was anticipated. Analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle.Results: Between October 2014 and March 2016 we randomly allocated 59 women to enteral tube feeding and 57 women to standard care. The mean ± SD birth weight was 3160 ± 770 g in the enteral tube feeding group compared with 3200 ± 680 g in the standard care group (mean difference: -40 g, 95% CI: -230, 310 g). Secondary outcomes, including maternal weight gain, duration of hospital stay, readmission rate, nausea and vomiting symptoms, decrease in quality of life, psychological distress, prematurity, and small-for-gestational-age, also were comparable. Of the women allocated to enteral tube feeding, 28 (47%) were treated according to protocol. Enteral tube feeding was discontinued within 7 d of placement in the remaining women, primarily because of its adverse effects (34%).Conclusions: In women with HG, early enteral tube feeding does not improve birth weight or secondary outcomes. Many women discontinued tube feeding because of discomfort, suggesting that it is poorly tolerated as an early routine treatment of HG. This trial was registered at www.trialregister.nl as NTR4197.