分娩时是否应该限制食物摄入量?随机对照试验

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Pub Date : 2024-11-13 DOI:10.1007/s00404-024-07820-8
Gil Shechter Maor, Rona Bogin Greenfield, Sivan Farladansky-Gershnabel, Dana Sadeh Mestechkin, Hanoch Schreiber, Tal Biron-Shental, Omer Weitzner
{"title":"分娩时是否应该限制食物摄入量?随机对照试验","authors":"Gil Shechter Maor, Rona Bogin Greenfield, Sivan Farladansky-Gershnabel, Dana Sadeh Mestechkin, Hanoch Schreiber, Tal Biron-Shental, Omer Weitzner","doi":"10.1007/s00404-024-07820-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate whether consuming food during labor influences its outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This randomized controlled study included healthy, laboring patients at 37-41 weeks of gestation. After epidural anesthesia, patients were randomized into groups of eating at will versus drinking clear fluids only. The primary composite outcome included unplanned cesarean delivery, the need for general anesthesia, asphyxia, postpartum fever, and prolonged postpartum admission (more than 5 days). Secondary outcomes included the need for oxytocin, length of the second stage of labor, postpartum analgesia requirements, and early maternal and neonatal outcomes. Sample size analysis indicated that 126 patients needed to be randomized to detect a statistically significance difference between the groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 129 patients were randomized: 58 to the fluids-only group and 71 to the food group. The groups had similar basic characteristics. The composite outcome of complications attributed to eating during labor and delivery was comparable between groups. Labor progression and the need for oxytocin augmentation were similar in both groups. The groups had comparable fetal heart rate tracings, modes of delivery, maternal and neonatal outcomes, and complications. None of the patients in the study experienced aspiration or an indication for general anesthesia.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While our data suggest that eating during labor does not adversely affect labor progression or outcomes, we recommend a cautious approach, allowing patients autonomy while considering individual risk factors.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The study has been registered in the primary clinical trial registry on 02/12/2023. ISRCTN trial number ISRCTN11794106, registration number 44513. https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN11794106 .</p>","PeriodicalId":8330,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Should we restrict food intake during labor? A randomized controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Gil Shechter Maor, Rona Bogin Greenfield, Sivan Farladansky-Gershnabel, Dana Sadeh Mestechkin, Hanoch Schreiber, Tal Biron-Shental, Omer Weitzner\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00404-024-07820-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate whether consuming food during labor influences its outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This randomized controlled study included healthy, laboring patients at 37-41 weeks of gestation. After epidural anesthesia, patients were randomized into groups of eating at will versus drinking clear fluids only. The primary composite outcome included unplanned cesarean delivery, the need for general anesthesia, asphyxia, postpartum fever, and prolonged postpartum admission (more than 5 days). Secondary outcomes included the need for oxytocin, length of the second stage of labor, postpartum analgesia requirements, and early maternal and neonatal outcomes. Sample size analysis indicated that 126 patients needed to be randomized to detect a statistically significance difference between the groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 129 patients were randomized: 58 to the fluids-only group and 71 to the food group. The groups had similar basic characteristics. The composite outcome of complications attributed to eating during labor and delivery was comparable between groups. Labor progression and the need for oxytocin augmentation were similar in both groups. The groups had comparable fetal heart rate tracings, modes of delivery, maternal and neonatal outcomes, and complications. None of the patients in the study experienced aspiration or an indication for general anesthesia.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While our data suggest that eating during labor does not adversely affect labor progression or outcomes, we recommend a cautious approach, allowing patients autonomy while considering individual risk factors.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The study has been registered in the primary clinical trial registry on 02/12/2023. ISRCTN trial number ISRCTN11794106, registration number 44513. https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN11794106 .</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8330,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-024-07820-8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-024-07820-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评估分娩时进食是否会影响分娩结果:这项随机对照研究包括妊娠 37-41 周的健康产妇。硬膜外麻醉后,患者被随机分为随意进食组和仅饮用清水组。主要综合结果包括意外剖宫产、需要全身麻醉、窒息、产后发烧和产后入院时间延长(超过 5 天)。次要结果包括催产素需求、第二产程时间、产后镇痛需求以及早期产妇和新生儿预后。样本量分析表明,需要对 126 名患者进行随机分组,才能检测出两组之间存在统计学意义上的差异:结果:共有 129 名患者被随机分组:结果:共有 129 名患者被随机分配到只输液组和食物组,其中只输液组 58 人,食物组 71 人。两组的基本特征相似。两组患者在分娩过程中因进食引起并发症的综合结果相当。两组的产程进展和催产素使用需求相似。两组的胎儿心率描记、分娩方式、孕产妇和新生儿结局以及并发症均具有可比性。研究中没有一名患者出现吸入或全身麻醉指征:结论:虽然我们的数据表明,分娩过程中进食不会对产程进展或结果产生不利影响,但我们建议采取谨慎的方法,在考虑个体风险因素的同时允许患者自主进食:该研究已于 2023 年 12 月 2 日在主要临床试验注册中心注册。ISRCTN 试验编号为 ISRCTN11794106,注册编号为 44513。https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN11794106 。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Should we restrict food intake during labor? A randomized controlled trial.

Purpose: To evaluate whether consuming food during labor influences its outcomes.

Methods: This randomized controlled study included healthy, laboring patients at 37-41 weeks of gestation. After epidural anesthesia, patients were randomized into groups of eating at will versus drinking clear fluids only. The primary composite outcome included unplanned cesarean delivery, the need for general anesthesia, asphyxia, postpartum fever, and prolonged postpartum admission (more than 5 days). Secondary outcomes included the need for oxytocin, length of the second stage of labor, postpartum analgesia requirements, and early maternal and neonatal outcomes. Sample size analysis indicated that 126 patients needed to be randomized to detect a statistically significance difference between the groups.

Results: A total of 129 patients were randomized: 58 to the fluids-only group and 71 to the food group. The groups had similar basic characteristics. The composite outcome of complications attributed to eating during labor and delivery was comparable between groups. Labor progression and the need for oxytocin augmentation were similar in both groups. The groups had comparable fetal heart rate tracings, modes of delivery, maternal and neonatal outcomes, and complications. None of the patients in the study experienced aspiration or an indication for general anesthesia.

Conclusion: While our data suggest that eating during labor does not adversely affect labor progression or outcomes, we recommend a cautious approach, allowing patients autonomy while considering individual risk factors.

Trial registration: The study has been registered in the primary clinical trial registry on 02/12/2023. ISRCTN trial number ISRCTN11794106, registration number 44513. https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN11794106 .

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
15.40%
发文量
493
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Founded in 1870 as "Archiv für Gynaekologie", Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics has a long and outstanding tradition. Since 1922 the journal has been the Organ of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe. "The Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics" is circulated in over 40 countries world wide and is indexed in "PubMed/Medline" and "Science Citation Index Expanded/Journal Citation Report". The journal publishes invited and submitted reviews; peer-reviewed original articles about clinical topics and basic research as well as news and views and guidelines and position statements from all sub-specialties in gynecology and obstetrics.
期刊最新文献
Exploratory study on the enhancement of O-RADS application effectiveness for novice ultrasonographers via deep learning. Supportive care and information needs in relation to quality of life among patients with breast cancer and gynaecological cancer during the time of treatment. Evaluation of uterocervical angle in intrauterine device displacement cases. Risk factors for bladder injuries during cesarean sections: insights from a 15 year experience at a tertiary care center and a systematic review with meta-analysis. When pulmonary arterial hypertension and pregnancy meet: a multidisciplinary clinical experts review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1