METHODS: Women at their first hospitalization for hyperemesis gravidarum were enrolled on admission to the ward and randomly assigned to receive either 5% dextrose-0.9% saline or 0.9% saline by intravenous infusion at a rate 125 mL/h over 24 hours in a double-blind trial. All participants also received thiamine and an antiemetic intravenously. Oral intake was allowed as tolerated. Primary outcomes were resolution of ketonuria and well-being (by 10-point visual numerical rating scale) at 24 hours. Nausea visual numerical rating scale scores were obtained every 8 hours for 24 hours.
RESULTS: Persistent ketonuria rates after the 24-hour study period were 10 of 101 (9.9%) compared with 11 of 101 (10.9%) (P>.99; relative risk 0.9, 95% confidence interval 0.4-2.2) and median (interquartile range) well-being scores at 24 hours were 9 (8-10) compared with 9 (8-9.5) (P=.73) in the 5% dextrose-0.9% saline and 0.9% saline arms, respectively. Repeated measures analysis of variance of the nausea visual numerical rating scale score as assessed every 8 hours during the 24-hour study period showed a significant difference in favor of the 5% dextrose-0.9% saline arm (P=.046) with the superiority apparent at 8 and 16 hours, but the advantage had dissipated by 24 hours. Secondary outcomes of vomiting, resolution of hyponatremia, hypochloremia and hypokalemia, length of hospitalization, duration of intravenous antiemetic, and rehydration were not different.
CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous rehydration with 5% dextrose-0.9% saline or 0.9% saline solution in women hospitalized for hyperemesis gravidarum produced similar outcomes.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Register, www.controlled-trials.com/isrctn, ISRCTN65014409.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.
DESIGN: Randomised trial.
SETTING: University Hospital, Malaysia: April 2016-April 2017.
POPULATION: One hundred and sixty women hospitalised for HG.
METHOD: Women were randomised upon admission to fasting for 12 hours or expedited oral feeding. Standard HG care was instituted.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Primary outcome was satisfaction score with overall treatment at 24 hours (0-10 Visual Numerical Rating Scale VNRS), vomiting episodes within 24 hours and nausea VNRS score at enrolment, and at 8, 16 and 24 hours.
RESULTS: Satisfaction score, median (interquartile range) 8 (5-9) versus 8 (7-9) (P = 0.08) and 24-hour vomiting episodes were 1 (0-4) versus 1 (0-5) (P = 0.24) for 12-hour fasting versus expedited feeding, respectively. Repeated measures analysis of variance of nausea scores over 24 hours showed no difference (P = 0.11) between trial arms. Participants randomised to 12-hour fasting compared with expedited feeding were less likely to prefer their feeding regimen in future hospitalisation (41% versus 65%, P = 0.001), to recommend to a friend (65% versus 84%, P = 0.01; RR 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-0.9) and to adhere to protocol (85% versus 95%, P = 0.04; RR 0.9, 95% CI 0.8-1.0). Symptoms profile, ketonuria status at 24 hours and length of hospital stay were not different.
CONCLUSION: Advisory of 12-hour fasting compared with immediate oral feeding resulted in a non-significant difference in satisfaction score but adherence to protocol and fidelity to and recommendation of immediate oral feeding to a friend were lower. The 24-hour nausea scores and vomiting episodes were similar.
TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Women hospitalised for hyperemesis gravidarum could feed as soon, as much and as often as can be tolerated compared with initial fasting.