Stan Catalin M, Boulvain Michel, Pfister Riccardo, Hirsbrunner-Almagbaly Pascale
Private Practice, Avenue Vinet 16, Lausanne, Switzerland, 1004.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Nov 4;2013(11):CD003096. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003096.pub2.
Hydration has been proposed as a treatment for women with preterm labour. Theoretically, hydration may reduce uterine contractility by increasing uterine blood flow and by decreasing pituitary secretion of antidiuretic hormone and oxytocin.
To evaluate the effectiveness of intravenous or oral hydration to avoid preterm birth and its consequences in women with preterm labour.
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2013) and bibliographies of relevant papers.
Randomised controlled trials, including women with a viable pregnancy less than 37 completed weeks' gestation and presenting with preterm labour, comparing intravenous or oral hydration with no treatment. The intervention might or might not be associated with bed rest. Studies comparing tocolytic drugs with intravenous fluids used in the control group as a placebo were not included in this review.
Two review authors independently assessed the reports, to determine if the study met the inclusion criteria and to evaluate the methodological quality. Data were extracted independently by two of the review authors. The results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes.
Two studies, including a total of 228 women with preterm labour and intact membranes, compared intravenous hydration with bed rest alone. Risk of preterm delivery, before 37 weeks (RR) 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.68), before 34 weeks (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.20 to 2.56) or before 32 weeks (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.29 to 1.97), was similar between groups. Admission to neonatal intensive care unit occurred with similar frequency in both groups (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.46 to 2.16). Cost of treatment was slightly higher (US$39) in the hydration group. This difference was not statistically significant and only includes hospital costs during a visit of less than 24 hours. No studies evaluated oral hydration.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The data are too few to support the use of hydration as a specific treatment for women presenting with preterm labour. The two small studies available do not show any advantage of hydration compared with bed rest alone. Intravenous hydration does not seem to be beneficial, even during the period of evaluation soon after admission, in women with preterm labour. Women with evidence of dehydration may, however, benefit from the intervention.
补液已被提议作为早产女性的一种治疗方法。从理论上讲,补液可通过增加子宫血流量以及减少垂体抗利尿激素和催产素的分泌来降低子宫收缩力。
评估静脉或口服补液在避免早产及其对早产女性的影响方面的有效性。
我们检索了Cochrane妊娠与分娩组试验注册库(2013年9月30日)以及相关论文的参考文献。
随机对照试验,纳入妊娠周数小于37周且已存活、出现早产的女性,比较静脉或口服补液与不治疗的效果。干预措施可能与卧床休息有关,也可能无关。本综述不包括将宫缩抑制剂与对照组用作安慰剂的静脉输液进行比较的研究。
两位综述作者独立评估报告,以确定该研究是否符合纳入标准并评估方法学质量。数据由两位综述作者独立提取。结果以二分类结局的风险比(RR)和连续结局的均值差(MD)表示。
两项研究共纳入228例胎膜完整的早产女性,比较了静脉补液与单纯卧床休息的效果。两组在37周前(RR 1.09;95%置信区间[CI] 0.71至1.68)、34周前(RR 0.72;95% CI 0.20至2.56)或32周前(RR 0.76;95% CI 0.29至1.97)的早产风险相似。两组新生儿重症监护病房收治频率相似(RR 0.99;95% CI 0.46至2.16)。补液组的治疗费用略高(39美元)。这种差异无统计学意义,且仅包括就诊时间少于24小时期间的住院费用。没有研究评估口服补液。
数据过少,无法支持将补液作为早产女性的一种特异性治疗方法。现有的两项小型研究未显示补液相对于单纯卧床休息有任何优势。对于早产女性,即使在入院后不久的评估期间,静脉补液似乎也无益处。然而,有脱水证据的女性可能会从该干预措施中获益。