PURPOSE: We hypothesized that oral rehydration therapy using an oral rehydration solution may be effective for preoperative fluid and electrolyte management in surgical patients before the induction of general anesthesia, and we investigated the safety and effectiveness of oral rehydration therapy as compared with intravenous therapy. METHODS:Fifty female patients who underwent breast surgery were randomly allocated to two groups. Before entry to the operation room and the induction of general anesthesia, 25 patients drank 1000 ml of an oral rehydration solution ("oral group") and 25 patients were infused with 1000 ml of an intravenous electrolyte solution ("intravenous group"). Parameters such as electrolyte concentrations in serum and urine, urine volume, vital signs, vomiting and aspiration, volumes of esophageal-pharyngeal fluid and gastric fluid (EPGF), and patient satisfaction with the therapy (as surveyed by a questionnaire) were assessed. RESULTS: After treatment, the serum sodium concentration and the hematocrit value, which both declined within the normal limits, were significantly higher in the oral group than in the intravenous group (sodium, 140.8 +/- 2.9 mEq x l(-1) in the oral group and 138.7 +/- 1.9 mEq x l(-1) in the intravenous group; P = 0.005; hematocrit, 39.03 +/- 4.16% in the oral group and 36.15 +/- 3.41% in the intravenous group; P = 0.01). No significant difference was observed in serum glucose values. Urine volume was significantly larger in the oral group (864.9 +/- 211.5 ml) than in the intravenous group (561.5 +/- 216.0 ml; P < 0.001). The fractional excretion of sodium (FENa), as an index of renal blood flow, was increased in both groups following treatment (0.8 +/- 0.5 in the oral group and 0.8 +/- 0.3 in the intravenous group). Patient satisfaction with the therapy favored the oral rehydration therapy, as judged by factors such as "feeling of hunger", "occurrence of dry mouth", and "less restriction in physical activity". The volume of EPGF collected following the induction of anesthesia was significantly smaller in the oral group than in the intravenous group (6.03 +/- 9.14 ml in the oral group and 21.76 +/- 30.56 ml in the intravenous group; P < 0.001). No adverse events or adverse reactions were observed in either group. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the oral rehydration therapy with an oral rehydration solution before surgery is superior to the current preoperative intravenous therapy for the provision of water, electrolytes, and carbohydrates, and this therapy should be considered as an alternative to the intravenous therapy for preoperative fluid and electrolyte management in selected surgical patients in whom there is no reason to suspect delayed gastric emptying.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: We hypothesized that oral rehydration therapy using an oral rehydration solution may be effective for preoperative fluid and electrolyte management in surgical patients before the induction of general anesthesia, and we investigated the safety and effectiveness of oral rehydration therapy as compared with intravenous therapy. METHODS: Fifty female patients who underwent breast surgery were randomly allocated to two groups. Before entry to the operation room and the induction of general anesthesia, 25 patients drank 1000 ml of an oral rehydration solution ("oral group") and 25 patients were infused with 1000 ml of an intravenous electrolyte solution ("intravenous group"). Parameters such as electrolyte concentrations in serum and urine, urine volume, vital signs, vomiting and aspiration, volumes of esophageal-pharyngeal fluid and gastric fluid (EPGF), and patient satisfaction with the therapy (as surveyed by a questionnaire) were assessed. RESULTS: After treatment, the serum sodium concentration and the hematocrit value, which both declined within the normal limits, were significantly higher in the oral group than in the intravenous group (sodium, 140.8 +/- 2.9 mEq x l(-1) in the oral group and 138.7 +/- 1.9 mEq x l(-1) in the intravenous group; P = 0.005; hematocrit, 39.03 +/- 4.16% in the oral group and 36.15 +/- 3.41% in the intravenous group; P = 0.01). No significant difference was observed in serum glucose values. Urine volume was significantly larger in the oral group (864.9 +/- 211.5 ml) than in the intravenous group (561.5 +/- 216.0 ml; P < 0.001). The fractional excretion of sodium (FENa), as an index of renal blood flow, was increased in both groups following treatment (0.8 +/- 0.5 in the oral group and 0.8 +/- 0.3 in the intravenous group). Patient satisfaction with the therapy favored the oral rehydration therapy, as judged by factors such as "feeling of hunger", "occurrence of dry mouth", and "less restriction in physical activity". The volume of EPGF collected following the induction of anesthesia was significantly smaller in the oral group than in the intravenous group (6.03 +/- 9.14 ml in the oral group and 21.76 +/- 30.56 ml in the intravenous group; P < 0.001). No adverse events or adverse reactions were observed in either group. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the oral rehydration therapy with an oral rehydration solution before surgery is superior to the current preoperative intravenous therapy for the provision of water, electrolytes, and carbohydrates, and this therapy should be considered as an alternative to the intravenous therapy for preoperative fluid and electrolyte management in selected surgical patients in whom there is no reason to suspect delayed gastric emptying.
Authors: K C H Fearon; O Ljungqvist; M Von Meyenfeldt; A Revhaug; C H C Dejong; K Lassen; J Nygren; J Hausel; M Soop; J Andersen; H Kehlet Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2005-04-21 Impact factor: 7.324
Authors: A M Mauer; H S Dweck; L Finberg; F Holmes; J W Reynolds; R M Suskind; C W Woodruff; S Hellerstein Journal: Pediatrics Date: 1985-02 Impact factor: 7.124