Rapid intravenous rehydration of children with acute gastroenteritis and dehydration: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
ABSTRACT: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends rapid intravenous rehydration, using fluid volumes of 70-100mls/kg over 3-6 h, with some of the initial volume given rapidly as initial fluid boluses to treat hypovolaemic shock for children with acute gastroenteritis (AGE) and severe dehydration. The evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of rapid versus slower rehydration remains uncertain.We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on 11th of May 2017 comparing different rates of intravenous fluid therapy in children with AGE and moderate or severe dehydration, using standard search terms. Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Non-RCTs and non-English articles were excluded. The primary endpoint was mortality and secondary endpoints included adverse events (safety) and treatment efficacy.Of the 1390 studies initially identified, 18 were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 3 studies (n = 464) fulfilled a priori criteria for inclusion; most studied children with moderate dehydration and none were conducted in resource-poor settings. Volumes and rates of fluid replacement varied from 20 to 60 ml/kg given over 1-2 h (fast) versus 2-4 h (slow). There was substantial heterogeneity in methodology between the studies with only one adjudicated to be of high quality. There were no deaths in any study. Safety endpoints only identified oedema (n = 6) and dysnatraemia (n = 2). Pooled analysis showed no significant difference between the rapid and slow intravenous rehydration groups for the proportion of treatment failures (N = 468): pooled RR 1.30 (95% CI: 0.87, 1.93) and the readmission rates (N = 439): pooled RR 1.39 (95% CI: 0.68, 2.85).Despite wide implementation of WHO Plan C guideline for severe AGE, we found no clinical evaluation in resource-limited settings, and only limited evaluation of the rate and volume of rehydration in other parts of the world. Recent concerns over aggressive fluid expansion warrants further research to inform guidelines on rates of intravenous rehydration therapy for severe AGE.
Project description:Background: Rehydration strategies in children with severe acute malnutrition (SAM) and severe dehydration are extremely cautious. The World Health Organization (WHO) SAM guidelines advise strongly against intravenous fluids unless the child is shocked or severely dehydrated and unable to tolerate oral fluids. Otherwise, guidelines recommend oral or nasogastric rehydration using low sodium oral rehydration solutions. There is limited evidence to support these recommendations. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies on 15 th June 2017 comparing different strategies of rehydration therapy in children with acute gastroenteritis and severe dehydration, specifically relating to intravenous rehydration, using standard search terms. Two authors assessed papers for inclusion. The primary endpoint was evidence of fluid overload. Results: Four studies were identified, all published in English, including 883 children, all of which were conducted in low resource settings. Two were randomised controlled trials and two observational cohort studies, one incorporated assessment of myocardial and haemodynamic function. There was no evidence of fluid overload or other fluid-related adverse events, including children managed on more liberal rehydration protocols. Mortality was high overall, and particularly in children with shock managed on WHO recommendations (day-28 mortality 82%). There was no difference in safety outcomes when different rates of intravenous rehydration were compared. Conclusions: The current 'strong recommendations' for conservative rehydration of children with SAM are not based on emerging evidence. We found no clinical trials providing a direct assessment of the current WHO guidelines, and those that were available suggested that these children have a high mortality and remain fluid depleted on current therapy. Recent studies have reported no evidence of fluid overload or heart failure with more liberal rehydration regimens. Clinical trials are urgently required to inform guidelines on routes and rates of intravenous rehydration therapy for dehydration in children with SAM.
Project description:BACKGROUND:The World Health Organization (WHO) rehydration management guidelines (Plan C) for children with acute gastroenteritis (AGE) and severe dehydration are widely practiced in resource-poor settings, yet have never been formally evaluated in a clinical trial. A recent audit of outcome of AGE at Kilifi County Hospital, Kenya noted that 10% of children required high dependency care (20% mortality) and a number developed fluid-related complications. The fluid resuscitation trial, FEAST, conducted in African children with severe febrile illness, demonstrated higher mortality with fluid bolus therapy and raised concerns regarding the safety of rapid intravenous rehydration therapy. Those findings warrant a detailed physiological study of children's responses to rehydration therapy incorporating quantification of myocardial performance and haemodynamic changes. Methods: GASTRO is a multi-centre, unblinded Phase II randomised controlled trial of 120 children aged 2 months to 12 years admitted to hospital with severe dehydration secondary to AGE. Children with severe malnutrition, chronic diarrhoea and congenital/rheumatic heart disease are excluded. Children will be enrolled over 18 months in 3 centres in Kenya and Uganda and followed until 7 days post-discharge. The trial will randomise children 1:1 to standard rapid rehydration using Ringers Lactate (WHO plan 'C' - 100mls/kg over 3-6 hours according to age, plus additional 0.9% saline boluses for children presenting in shock) or to a slower rehydration regimen (100mls/kg given over 8 hours and without the addition of fluid boluses). Enrolment started in November 2016 and is on-going. Primary outcome is frequency of adverse events, particularly related to cardiovascular compromise and neurological sequelae. Secondary outcomes focus on clinical, biochemical, and physiological measures related to assessment of severity of dehydration, and response to treatment by intravenous rehydration. DISCUSSION:Results from this pilot will contribute to generating robust definitions of outcomes (in particular for non-mortality endpoints) for a larger Phase III trial.
Project description:BACKGROUND:For children worldwide, diarrhea is the second leading cause of death. These deaths are preventable by fluid resuscitation. Nasogastric tubes (NGs) have been shown to be equivalent to intravenous fluids for rehydration and recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) for use in severe dehydration. Despite this, NGs are rarely used for rehydration in Kenya. Our objective was to evaluate clinicians' adherence to rehydration guidelines and to identify barriers to the use of NGs for resuscitating dehydrated children. METHODS:A case-based structured survey was administered to pediatric care providers in western Kenya to determine their choices for alternative rehydration therapies when oral rehydration and intravenous fluids fail. Providers then participated in a qualitative, semi-structured interview to identify barriers to using nasogastric tubes for rehydration. Analysis included manual, progressive coding of interview transcripts to identify emerging central themes. RESULTS:Of 44 participants, only four (9%) followed WHO guidelines that recommend quickly switching to NG for rehydration in their case responses. Participants identified that placing intravenous lines in dehydrated children is a challenge. However, when discussing NG use, many believed NGs are not effective for rehydration. Other participants' concerns surrounded knowledge and training regarding guidelines as well as not having NGs available. DISCUSSION:Healthcare providers in western Kenya do not report using NGs for rehydration in accordance with WHO guidelines for diarrheal illness with severe dehydration. Barriers to the use of NG tubes were lack of knowledge and availability. Education and implementation of guidelines using NG tubes for rehydration may improve outcomes of children suffering from diarrheal illness with severe dehydration.
Project description:STUDY OBJECTIVE:We determine whether single-dose oral ondansetron administration to children with vomiting as a result of acute gastroenteritis without dehydration reduces administration of intravenous fluid rehydration. METHODS:In this 2-hospital, double-blind, placebo-controlled, emergency department-based, randomized trial conducted in Karachi Pakistan, we recruited children aged 0.5 to 5.0 years, without dehydration, who had diarrhea and greater than or equal to 1 episode of vomiting within 4 hours of arrival. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), through an Internet-based randomization service using a stratified variable-block randomization scheme, to single-dose oral ondansetron or placebo. The primary endpoint was intravenous rehydration (administration of ?20 mL/kg of an isotonic fluid during 4 hours) within 72 hours of randomization. RESULTS:Participant median age was 15 months (interquartile range 10 to 26) and 59.4% (372/626) were male patients. Intravenous rehydration use was 12.1% (38/314) and 11.9% (37/312) in the placebo and ondansetron groups, respectively (odds ratio 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60 to 1.61; difference 0.2%; 95% CI of the difference -4.9% to 5.4%). Bolus fluid administration occurred within 72 hours of randomization in 10.8% (34/314) and 10.3% (27/312) of children administered placebo and ondansetron, respectively (odds ratio 0.95; 95% CI 0.56 to 1.59). A multivariable regression model fitted with treatment group and adjusted for antiemetic administration, antibiotics, zinc prerandomization, and vomiting frequency prerandomization yielded similar results (odds ratio 0.91; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.53). There was no interaction between treatment group and age, greater than or equal to 3 stools in the preceding 24 hours, or greater than or equal to 3 vomiting episodes in the preceding 24 hours. CONCLUSION:Oral administration of a single dose of ondansetron did not result in a reduction in intravenous rehydration use. In children without dehydration, ondansetron does not improve clinical outcomes.
Project description:To determine if rapid rather than standard intravenous rehydration results in improved hydration and clinical outcomes when administered to children with gastroenteritis.Single centre, two arm, parallel randomised pragmatic controlled trial. Blocked randomisation stratified by site. Participants, caregivers, outcome assessors, investigators, and statisticians were blinded to the treatment assignment.Paediatric emergency department in a tertiary care centre in Toronto, Canada.226 children aged 3 months to 11 years; complete follow-up was obtained on 223 (99%). Eligible children were aged over 90 days, had a diagnosis of dehydration secondary to gastroenteritis, had not responded to oral rehydration, and had been prescribed intravenous rehydration. Children were excluded if they weighed less than 5 kg or more than 33 kg, required fluid restriction, had a suspected surgical condition, or had an insurmountable language barrier. Children were also excluded if they had a history of a chronic systemic disease, abdominal surgery, bilious or bloody vomit, hypotension, or hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia.Rapid (60 mL/kg) or standard (20 mL/kg) rehydration with 0.9% saline over an hour; subsequent fluids administered according to protocol.clinical rehydration, assessed with a validated scale, two hours after the start of treatment.prolonged treatment, mean clinical dehydration scores over the four hour study period, time to discharge, repeat visits to emergency department, adequate oral intake, and physician's comfort with discharge. Data from all randomised patients were included in an intention to treat analysis.114 patients were randomised to rapid rehydration and 112 to standard. One child was withdrawn because of severe hyponatraemia at baseline. There was no evidence of a difference between the rapid and standard rehydration groups in the proportions of participants who were rehydrated at two hours (41/114 (36%) v 33/112 (30%); difference 6.5% (95% confidence interval -5.7% to 18.7%; P=0.32). The results did not change after adjustment for weight, baseline dehydration score, and baseline pH (odds ratio 1.8, 0.90 to 3.5; P=0.10). The rates of prolonged treatment were similar (52% rapid v 43% standard; difference 8.9%, 21% to -5%; P=0.19). Although dehydration scores were similar throughout the study period (P=0.96), the median time to discharge was longer in the rapid group (6.3 v 5.0 hours; P=0.03).There are no relevant clinical benefits from the administration of rapid rather than standard intravenous rehydration to haemodynamically stable children deemed to require intravenous rehydration. Trail registration Clinical Trials NCT00392145.
Project description:BACKGROUND: Despite treatment recommendations from various organizations, oral rehydration therapy (ORT) continues to be underused, particularly by physicians in high-income countries. We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to compare ORT and intravenous therapy (IVT) for the treatment of dehydration secondary to acute gastroenteritis in children. METHODS: RCTs were identified through MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, authors and references of included trials, pharmaceutical companies, and relevant organizations. Screening and inclusion were performed independently by two reviewers in order to identify randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing ORT and IVT in children with acute diarrhea and dehydration. Two reviewers independently assessed study quality using the Jadad scale and allocation concealment. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. The primary outcome measure was failure of rehydration. We analyzed data using standard meta-analytic techniques. RESULTS: The quality of the 14 included trials ranged from 0 to 3 (Jadad score); allocation concealment was unclear in all but one study. Using a random effects model, there was no significant difference in treatment failures (risk difference [RD] 3%; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0, 6). The Mantel-Haenzsel fixed effects model gave a significant difference between treatment groups (RD 4%; 95% CI: 2, 5) favoring IVT. Based on the four studies that reported deaths, there were six in the IVT groups and two in ORT. There were no significant differences in total fluid intake at six and 24 hours, weight gain, duration of diarrhea, or hypo/hypernatremia. Length of stay was significantly shorter for the ORT group (weighted mean difference [WMD] -1.2 days; 95% CI: -2.4,-0.02). Phlebitis occurred significantly more often with IVT (number needed to treat [NNT] 33; 95% CI: 25,100); paralytic ileus occurred more often with ORT (NNT 33; 95% CI: 20,100). These results may not be generalizable to children with persistent vomiting. CONCLUSION: There were no clinically important differences between ORT and IVT in terms of efficacy and safety. For every 25 children (95% CI: 20, 50) treated with ORT, one would fail and require IVT. The results support existing practice guidelines recommending ORT as the first course of treatment in appropriate children with dehydration secondary to gastroenteritis.
Project description:Background: Diarrhoea complicates over half of admissions to hospital with severe acute malnutrition (SAM). World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for the management of dehydration recommend the use of oral rehydration with ReSoMal (an oral rehydration solution (ORS) for SAM), which has lower sodium (45mmols/l) and higher potassium (40mmols/l) content than old WHO ORS. The composition of ReSoMal was designed specifically to address theoretical risks of sodium overload and potential under-treatment of severe hypokalaemia with rehydration using standard ORS. In African children, severe hyponatraemia at admission is a major risk factor for poor outcome in children with SAM complicated by diarrhoea. We therefore reviewed the evidence for oral rehydration therapy in children with SAM. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on 18 th July 2017 comparing different oral rehydration solutions in severely malnourished children with diarrhoea and dehydration, using standard search terms. The author assessed papers for inclusion. The primary endpoint was frequency of hyponatraemia during rehydration. Results: Six RCTs were identified, all published in English and conducted in low resource settings in Asia. A range of ORS were evaluated in these studies, including old WHO ORS, standard hypo-osmolar WHO ORS and ReSoMal. Hyponatraemia was observed in two trials evaluating ReSoMal, three children developed severe hyponatraemia with one experiencing convulsions. Hypo-osmolar ORS was found to have benefits in time to rehydration, reduction of stool output and duration of diarrhoea. No trials reported over-hydration or fatalities. Conclusions: Current WHO guidelines strongly recommend the use of ReSoMal based on low quality of evidence. Studies indicate a significant risk of hyponatraemia on ReSoMal in Asian children, none have been conducted in Africa, where SAM mortality remains high. Further research should be conducted in Africa to evaluate optimal ORS for children with SAM and to generate evidence based, practical guidelines.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Acute gastroenteritis is a leading cause of emergency department visits and hospitalizations among children in North America. Oral-rehydration therapy is recommended for children with mild-to-moderate dehydration, but children who present with vomiting are frequently offered intravenous rehydration in the emergency department (ED). Recent studies have demonstrated that the anti-emetic ondansetron can reduce vomiting, intravenous rehydration, and hospitalization when administered in the ED to children with dehydration. However, there is little evidence of additional benefit from prescribing ondansetron beyond the initial ED dose. Moreover, repeat dosing may increase the frequency of diarrhea. Despite the lack of evidence and potential adverse side effects, many physicians across North America provide multiple doses of ondansetron to be taken following ED disposition. Thus, the Multi-Dose Oral Ondansetron for Pediatric Gastroenteritis (DOSE-AGE) trial will evaluate the effectiveness of prescribing multiple doses of ondansetron to treat acute gastroenteritis-associated vomiting. This article specifies the statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the DOSE-AGE trial and was submitted before the outcomes of the study were available for analysis. METHODS/DESIGN:The DOSE-AGE study is a phase III, 6-center, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel design randomized controlled trial designed to determine whether participants who are prescribed multiple doses of oral ondansetron to administer, as needed, following their ED visit have a lower incidence of experiencing moderate-to-severe gastroenteritis, as measured by the Modified Vesikari Scale score, compared with a placebo. To assess safety, the DOSE-AGE trial will investigate the frequency and maximum number of diarrheal episodes following ED disposition, and the occurrence of palpitations, pre-syncope/syncope, chest pain, arrhythmias, and serious adverse events. For the secondary outcomes, the DOSE-AGE trial will investigate the individual elements of the Modified Vesikari Scale score and caregiver satisfaction with the therapy. DISCUSSION:The DOSE-AGE trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness of multiple doses of oral ondansetron, taken as needed, following an initial ED dose in children with acute gastroenteritis-associated vomiting. The data from the DOSE-AGE trial will be analyzed using this SAP. This will reduce the risk of producing data-driven results and bias in our reported outcomes. The DOSE-AGE study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov on February 22, 2019. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03851835 . Registered on 22 February 2019.
Project description:Background:Diarrhoea is a major cause of child mortality. Although oral rehydration solution (ORS) is an efficacious intervention for correcting dehydration, inadequate monitoring may limit its effectiveness in routine settings. We evaluated the effect of using a caregiver-administered chart to monitor oral fluid therapy on hydration status among children with some dehydration. Methods:An open-label randomized controlled trial was conducted among children 2-59 months of age. ORS fluid monitoring charts were given to caregivers in the intervention arm to record the hourly intake of ORS. ORS was administered without charting in the control arm. The primary outcome was dehydration defined by the presence of clinical signs of some dehydration, severe dehydration or shock assessed 4 h after initiation of treatment. We also assessed the acceptability of the charts among caregivers. Results:We evaluated 252 patients for the primary endpoint. Among those who received the intervention, 7/122 (5.7%) were still dehydrated following 4 h of ORS administration vs 20/130 (15.4%) in the control group (risk ratio 0.37 [95% confidence interval 0.16-0.85]). Caregivers in the intervention arm reported positive experiences using the fluid charts. Conclusions:The use of fluid monitoring charts reduced the frequency of dehydration and was well accepted by caregivers, representing a promising innovation for the management of diarrhoea and dehydration in resource-limited settings.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Pyropia haitanensis is an economically important marine crop grown in harsh intertidal habitats of southern China; it is also an excellent model system for studying mechanisms of stress tolerance. To understand the molecular mechanisms underlying osmotic tolerance and adaptation to intertidal environments, a comprehensive analysis of genome-wide gene expression profiles in response to dehydration and rehydration in Py. haitanensis was undertaken using digital gene expression profile (DGE) approaches combined with de novo transcriptome sequencing. RESULTS:RNA-sequencing of the pooled RNA samples from different developmental phases and stress treatments was performed, which generated a total of 47.7 million clean reads. These reads were de novo assembled into 28,536 unigenes (? 200 bp), of which 18,217 unigenes (63.83 %) were annotated in at least one reference database. DGE analysis was performed on four treatments (two biological replicates per treatment), which included moderate dehydration, severe dehydration, rehydration, and normal conditions. The number of raw reads per sample ranged from 12.47 to 15.79 million, with an average of 14.69 million reads per sample. After quality filtering, the number of clean reads per sample ranged from 11.83 to 15.04 million. All distinct sequencing reads were annotated using the transcriptome of Py. haitanensis as reference. A total of 1,681 unigenes showed significant differential expression between moderate dehydration and normal conditions, in which 977 genes were upregulated, and 704 genes were downregulated. Between severe dehydration and normal conditions, 1,993 unigenes showed significantly altered expression, which included both upregulated (1,219) and downregulated genes (774). In addition, 1,086 differentially expressed genes were detected between rehydration and normal conditions, of which 720 genes were upregulated and 366 unigenes were downregulated. Most gene expression patterns in response to dehydration differed from that of rehydration, except for the synthesis of unsaturated fatty acids, several transcription factor families, and molecular chaperones that have been collectively implicated in the processes of dehydration and rehydration in Py. haitanensis. CONCLUSIONS:Taken together, these data provide a global high-resolution analysis of gene expression changes during osmotic stress that could potentially serve as a key resource for understanding the biology of osmotic acclimation in intertidal red seaweed.