Dataset Information

Variables Associated With Intravenous Rehydration and Hospitalization in Children With Acute Gastroenteritis: A Secondary Analysis of 2 Randomized Clinical Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Despite guidelines endorsing oral rehydration therapy, intravenous fluids are commonly administered to children with acute gastroenteritis in high-income countries.

Objective

To identify factors associated with intravenous fluid administration and hospitalization in children with acute gastroenteritis.

Design, setting, and participants

This study is a planned secondary analysis of the Pediatric Emergency Research Canada (PERC) and Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) probiotic trials. Participants include children aged 3 to 48 months with 3 or more watery stools in 24 hours between November 5, 2013, and April 7, 2017, for the PERC study and July 8, 2014, and June 23, 2017, for the PECARN Study. Children were from 16 pediatric emergency departments throughout Canada (6) and the US (10). Data were analyzed from November 2, 2018, to March 16, 2021.

Exposures

Sex, age, preceding health care visit, distance between home and hospital, country (US vs Canada), frequency and duration of vomiting and diarrhea, presence of fever, Clinical Dehydration Scale score, oral ondansetron followed by oral rehydration therapy, and infectious agent.

Main outcomes and measures

Intravenous fluid administration and hospitalization.

Results

This secondary analysis of 2 randomized clinical trials included 1846 children (mean [SD] age, 19.1 [11.4] months; 1007 boys [54.6%]), of whom 534 of 1846 (28.9%) received oral ondansetron, 240 of 1846 (13.0%) received intravenous rehydration, and 67 of 1846 (3.6%) were hospitalized. The following were independently associated with intravenous rehydration: higher Clinical Dehydration Scale score (mild to moderate vs none, odds ratio [OR], 8.73; 95% CI, 5.81-13.13; and severe vs none, OR, 34.15; 95% CI, 13.45-86.73); country (US vs Canada, OR, 6.76; 95% CI, 3.15-14.49); prior health care visit with intravenous fluids (OR, 4.55; 95% CI, 1.32-15.72); and frequency of vomiting (per 5 episodes, OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.39-1.99). The following were independently associated with hospitalization: higher Clinical Dehydration Scale score (mild to moderate vs none, OR, 11.10; 95% CI, 5.05-24.38; and severe vs none, OR, 23.55; 95% CI, 7.09-78.25) and country (US vs Canada, OR, 3.37; 95% CI, 1.36-8.40). Oral ondansetron was associated with reduced odds of intravenous rehydration (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.13-0.32) and hospitalization (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.21-0.89).

Conclusions and relevance

Intravenous rehydration and hospitalization were associated with clinical evidence of dehydration and lack of an oral ondansetron-supported oral rehydration period. Strategies focusing on oral ondansetron administration followed by oral rehydration therapy in children with dehydration may reduce the reliance on intravenous rehydration and hospitalization.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT01853124 (PERC) and NCT01773967 (PECARN).

SUBMITTER: Poonai N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8056281 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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) 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. METHODS: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. MAIN RESULTS: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). CONCLUSIONS: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:BackgroundDespite 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.MethodsRCTs 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionThere 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:ObjectiveTo determine if rapid rather than standard intravenous rehydration results in improved hydration and clinical outcomes when administered to children with gastroenteritis.DesignSingle 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.SettingPaediatric emergency department in a tertiary care centre in Toronto, Canada.Participants226 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.InterventionsRapid (60 mL/kg) or standard (20 mL/kg) rehydration with 0.9% saline over an hour; subsequent fluids administered according to protocol.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcomeclinical rehydration, assessed with a validated scale, two hours after the start of treatment.Secondary outcomesprolonged 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.Results114 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).ConclusionsThere 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:BackgroundChildren hospitalised with severe acute malnutrition (SAM) are frequently complicated (>50%) by diarrhoea ( ≥3 watery stools/day) which is accompanied by poor outcomes. Rehydration guidelines for SAM are exceptionally conservative and controversial, based upon expert opinion. The guidelines only permit use of intravenous fluids for cases with advanced shock and exclusive use of low sodium intravenous and oral rehydration solutions (ORS) for fear of fluid and/or sodium overload. Children managed in accordance to these guidelines have a very high mortality. The proposed GASTROSAM trial will reappraise current recommendations with mortality as the primary outcome. We hypothesize that liberal rehydration strategies for both intravenous and oral rehydration in SAM children with diarrhoea may reduce adverse outcomes.MethodsAn open Phase II trial, with a partial factorial design, enrolling children in Uganda, Kenya, Nigeria and Niger aged 6 months to 12 years with SAM hospitalised with gastroenteritis (>3 loose stools/day) and signs of moderate and severe dehydration. In Stratum A (severe dehydration) children will be randomised (1:1:2) to WHO plan C (100mls/kg Ringers Lactate (RL) with intravenous rehydration (IV) given over 3-6 hours according to age including boluses for shock), slow rehydration (100 mls/kg RL over 8 hours (no boluses)) or WHO SAM rehydration regime (ORS only (boluses for shock (standard of care)). Stratum B incorporates all children with moderate dehydration and severe dehydration post-intravenous rehydration and compares (1:1 ratio) standard WHO ORS given for non-SAM (experimental) versus WHO SAM-recommended low-sodium ReSoMal. The primary outcome for intravenous rehydration is mortality to 96 hours and for oral rehydration a change in sodium levels at 24 hours post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes include measures assessing safety (evidence of pulmonary oedema or heart failure); change in sodium from post-iv levels for those in Stratum A; perturbations of electrolyte abnormalities (severe hyponatraemia <125 mmols/L or hypokalaemia.DiscussionIf the trial shows that rehydration strategies for non-malnourished children are safe and improve mortality in SAM this could prompt revisions to the current treatment recommendations or may prompt future Phase III trials.

Project description:BackgroundThe 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.DiscussionResults 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:ImportanceDespite guidelines recommending administration of intravenous (IV) magnesium sulfate for refractory pediatric asthma, the number of asthma-related hospitalizations has remained stable, and IV magnesium therapy is independently associated with hospitalization.ObjectiveTo examine the association between IV magnesium therapy administered in the emergency department (ED) and subsequent hospitalization among pediatric patients with refractory acute asthma after adjustment for patient-level variables.Design, setting, and participantsThis post hoc secondary analysis of a double-blind randomized clinical trial of children with acute asthma treated from September 26, 2011, to November 19, 2019, at 7 Canadian tertiary care pediatric EDs was conducted between September and November 2020. In the randomized clinical trial, 816 otherwise healthy children aged 2 to 17 years with Pediatric Respiratory Assessment Measure (PRAM) scores of 5 points or higher after initial therapy with systemic corticosteroids and inhaled albuterol with ipratropium bromide were randomly assigned to 3 nebulized treatments of albuterol plus either magnesium sulfate or 5.5% saline placebo.ExposuresIntravenous magnesium sulfate therapy (40-75 mg/kg).Main outcomes and measuresThe association between IV magnesium therapy in the ED and subsequent hospitalization for asthma was assessed using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Analyses were adjusted for year epoch at enrollment, receipt of IV magnesium, PRAM score after initial therapy and at ED disposition, age, sex, duration of respiratory distress, previous intensive care unit admission for asthma, hospitalizations for asthma within the past year, atopy, and receipt of oral corticosteroids within 48 hours before arrival in the ED, nebulized magnesium, and additional albuterol after inhaled magnesium or placebo, with site as a random effect.ResultsAmong the 816 participants, the median age was 5 years (interquartile range, 3-7 years), 517 (63.4%) were boys, and 364 (44.6%) were hospitalized. A total of 215 children (26.3%) received IV magnesium, and 190 (88.4%) of these children were hospitalized compared with 174 of 601 children (29.0%) who did not receive IV magnesium. Multivariable factors associated with hospitalization were IV magnesium receipt from 2011 to 2016 (odds ratio [OR], 22.67; 95% CI, 6.26-82.06; P < .001) and from 2017 to 2019 (OR, 4.19; 95% CI, 1.99-8.86; P < .001), use of additional albuterol (OR, 5.94; 95% CI, 3.52-10.01; P < .001), and increase in PRAM score at disposition (per 1-U increase: OR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.89-2.65; P < .001). In children with a disposition PRAM score of 3 or lower, receipt of IV magnesium therapy was associated with hospitalization (OR, 8.52; 95% CI, 2.96-24.41; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceAfter adjustment for patient-level characteristics, receipt of IV magnesium therapy after initial asthma treatment in the ED was associated with subsequent hospitalization. This association also existed among children with mild asthma at ED disposition. Evidence of a benefit of IV magnesium regarding hospitalization may clarify its use in the treatment of refractory pediatric asthma.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01429415.

Project description:IntroductionAcute pancreatitis is a high-incidence benign disease. In 2009, it was the second highest cause of total hospital stays, the largest contributor to aggregate costs (approximately US$ 7000.00 per hospitalization), and the fifth leading cause of in-hospital deaths in the United States. Although almost 80% of acute pancreatitis cases are mild (usually requiring short-term hospitalization and without further complications), severe cases can be quite challenging.Classifications, scores, and radiological criteria have been developed to predict disease severity and outcome accurately; however, in-hospital care remains of widespread use, regardless of disease severity. A recent Turkish study reported that mild acute pancreatitis can be effectively and safely managed with home monitoring. Although the optimal timing for oral refeeding remains controversial and could cast some doubt on the feasibility of home monitoring, some guidelines already advocate for starting it within 24 hours.The present clinical trial aims to assess whether home monitoring is effective, safe and non-inferior to hospitalization for managing mild acute pancreatitis.MethodsThis will be a multicenter open-label randomized (1:1) controlled clinical trial to assess the efficacy and safety of home monitoring compared to in-hospital care for mild acute pancreatitis. All patients coming to the emergency department with suspected acute pancreatitis will be screened for enrollment. The main variable will be treatment failure (Yes/No) within the first 7 days after randomization.DiscussionAcute pancreatitis implies a high economic burden in healthcare systems worldwide. Recent evidence suggests that mild disease can be safely and effectively treated with home monitoring. This approach may produce considerable cost savings and positively impact patients' quality of life. We expect the results to show that home monitoring is effective and not inferior to hospitalization for managing mild acute pancreatitis and that the economic costs are lower, kickstarting similar trials throughout the world, optimizing the use of limited healthcare budgets, and improving patients' quality of life.