Comparison of ultrarapid and rapid intravenous hydration in pediatric patients with dehydration

Alan L. Nager, Vincent J. Wang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study is to test the efficacy of ultrarapidly infused vs rapidly infused intravenous (IV) hydration in pediatric patients with acute gastroenteritis and moderate dehydration. Methods: Patients 3 to 36 months, with vomiting and/or diarrhea and moderate dehydration, were eligible. Subjects were randomly assigned "ultra" (50 mL/kg normal saline for 1 hour) vs "standard" (50 mL/kg normal saline for 3 hours) after failing an oral fluid challenge. Subjects were weighed and had serum electrolyte testing, and urine was obtained before/after IV hydration. Input/output and vital signs were tabulated hourly during the study. Subjects were discharged after fulfilling specified criteria. A follow-up questionnaire was completed 24 hours after discharge. Comparison data included success and timing of rehydration, number of patients who returned and/or were admitted, output during the rehydration period, laboratory differences, and serious complications. Results: Eighty-eight of 92 subjects completed the study: 45 ultra and 43 standard. Four patients failed treatment (1 ultra and 3 standard), were hospitalized, and excluded from the study. Groups were similar regarding sex, days of symptoms, episodes of vomiting/diarrhea before treatment, capillary refill time, tears, and vital signs and laboratory results. No subject had evidence of serious complications. Ninety-one percent of subjects completed the follow-up questionnaire. Seven ultra and 6 standard subjects returned. Six ultra subjects received oral fluid, one received IV fluid, and all were discharged. Five standard subjects received oral fluid, one received IV fluid, and all were discharged. Conclusion: Based on this pilot study, ultrarapid hydration for 1 hour preliminarily appears to be an efficacious alternative to standard rapid hydration for 3 hours and improves emergency department throughput time.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)123-129
Number of pages7
JournalAmerican Journal of Emergency Medicine
Volume28
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dehydration
Pediatrics
Vital Signs
Fluid Therapy
Vomiting
Diarrhea
Gastroenteritis
Tears
Electrolytes
Hospital Emergency Service
Urine
Therapeutics
Serum

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine

Cite this

Comparison of ultrarapid and rapid intravenous hydration in pediatric patients with dehydration. / Nager, Alan L.; Wang, Vincent J.

In: American Journal of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 28, No. 2, 01.02.2010, p. 123-129.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{013bd23809e6469ab4e8e059aa927e1b,
title = "Comparison of ultrarapid and rapid intravenous hydration in pediatric patients with dehydration",
abstract = "Objective: The purpose of this study is to test the efficacy of ultrarapidly infused vs rapidly infused intravenous (IV) hydration in pediatric patients with acute gastroenteritis and moderate dehydration. Methods: Patients 3 to 36 months, with vomiting and/or diarrhea and moderate dehydration, were eligible. Subjects were randomly assigned {"}ultra{"} (50 mL/kg normal saline for 1 hour) vs {"}standard{"} (50 mL/kg normal saline for 3 hours) after failing an oral fluid challenge. Subjects were weighed and had serum electrolyte testing, and urine was obtained before/after IV hydration. Input/output and vital signs were tabulated hourly during the study. Subjects were discharged after fulfilling specified criteria. A follow-up questionnaire was completed 24 hours after discharge. Comparison data included success and timing of rehydration, number of patients who returned and/or were admitted, output during the rehydration period, laboratory differences, and serious complications. Results: Eighty-eight of 92 subjects completed the study: 45 ultra and 43 standard. Four patients failed treatment (1 ultra and 3 standard), were hospitalized, and excluded from the study. Groups were similar regarding sex, days of symptoms, episodes of vomiting/diarrhea before treatment, capillary refill time, tears, and vital signs and laboratory results. No subject had evidence of serious complications. Ninety-one percent of subjects completed the follow-up questionnaire. Seven ultra and 6 standard subjects returned. Six ultra subjects received oral fluid, one received IV fluid, and all were discharged. Five standard subjects received oral fluid, one received IV fluid, and all were discharged. Conclusion: Based on this pilot study, ultrarapid hydration for 1 hour preliminarily appears to be an efficacious alternative to standard rapid hydration for 3 hours and improves emergency department throughput time.",
author = "Nager, {Alan L.} and Wang, {Vincent J.}",
year = "2010",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ajem.2008.09.046",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "28",
pages = "123--129",
journal = "American Journal of Emergency Medicine",
issn = "0735-6757",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of ultrarapid and rapid intravenous hydration in pediatric patients with dehydration

AU - Nager, Alan L.

AU - Wang, Vincent J.

PY - 2010/2/1

Y1 - 2010/2/1

N2 - Objective: The purpose of this study is to test the efficacy of ultrarapidly infused vs rapidly infused intravenous (IV) hydration in pediatric patients with acute gastroenteritis and moderate dehydration. Methods: Patients 3 to 36 months, with vomiting and/or diarrhea and moderate dehydration, were eligible. Subjects were randomly assigned "ultra" (50 mL/kg normal saline for 1 hour) vs "standard" (50 mL/kg normal saline for 3 hours) after failing an oral fluid challenge. Subjects were weighed and had serum electrolyte testing, and urine was obtained before/after IV hydration. Input/output and vital signs were tabulated hourly during the study. Subjects were discharged after fulfilling specified criteria. A follow-up questionnaire was completed 24 hours after discharge. Comparison data included success and timing of rehydration, number of patients who returned and/or were admitted, output during the rehydration period, laboratory differences, and serious complications. Results: Eighty-eight of 92 subjects completed the study: 45 ultra and 43 standard. Four patients failed treatment (1 ultra and 3 standard), were hospitalized, and excluded from the study. Groups were similar regarding sex, days of symptoms, episodes of vomiting/diarrhea before treatment, capillary refill time, tears, and vital signs and laboratory results. No subject had evidence of serious complications. Ninety-one percent of subjects completed the follow-up questionnaire. Seven ultra and 6 standard subjects returned. Six ultra subjects received oral fluid, one received IV fluid, and all were discharged. Five standard subjects received oral fluid, one received IV fluid, and all were discharged. Conclusion: Based on this pilot study, ultrarapid hydration for 1 hour preliminarily appears to be an efficacious alternative to standard rapid hydration for 3 hours and improves emergency department throughput time.

AB - Objective: The purpose of this study is to test the efficacy of ultrarapidly infused vs rapidly infused intravenous (IV) hydration in pediatric patients with acute gastroenteritis and moderate dehydration. Methods: Patients 3 to 36 months, with vomiting and/or diarrhea and moderate dehydration, were eligible. Subjects were randomly assigned "ultra" (50 mL/kg normal saline for 1 hour) vs "standard" (50 mL/kg normal saline for 3 hours) after failing an oral fluid challenge. Subjects were weighed and had serum electrolyte testing, and urine was obtained before/after IV hydration. Input/output and vital signs were tabulated hourly during the study. Subjects were discharged after fulfilling specified criteria. A follow-up questionnaire was completed 24 hours after discharge. Comparison data included success and timing of rehydration, number of patients who returned and/or were admitted, output during the rehydration period, laboratory differences, and serious complications. Results: Eighty-eight of 92 subjects completed the study: 45 ultra and 43 standard. Four patients failed treatment (1 ultra and 3 standard), were hospitalized, and excluded from the study. Groups were similar regarding sex, days of symptoms, episodes of vomiting/diarrhea before treatment, capillary refill time, tears, and vital signs and laboratory results. No subject had evidence of serious complications. Ninety-one percent of subjects completed the follow-up questionnaire. Seven ultra and 6 standard subjects returned. Six ultra subjects received oral fluid, one received IV fluid, and all were discharged. Five standard subjects received oral fluid, one received IV fluid, and all were discharged. Conclusion: Based on this pilot study, ultrarapid hydration for 1 hour preliminarily appears to be an efficacious alternative to standard rapid hydration for 3 hours and improves emergency department throughput time.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=76549129289&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=76549129289&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ajem.2008.09.046

DO - 10.1016/j.ajem.2008.09.046

M3 - Article

C2 - 20159379

AN - SCOPUS:76549129289

VL - 28

SP - 123

EP - 129

JO - American Journal of Emergency Medicine

JF - American Journal of Emergency Medicine

SN - 0735-6757

IS - 2

ER -