• Ed Oakley, Meredith Borland, Jocelyn Neutze, Jason Acworth, David Krieser, Stuart Dalziel, Andrew Davidson, Susan Donath, Kim Jachno, Mike South, Theane Theophilos, Franz E Babl, and Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative (PREDICT).
• Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Emergency Medicine, Monash Medical Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Southern Clinical School Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. Electronic address: ed.oakley@rch.org.au.
• Lancet Respir Med. 2013 Apr 1;1(2):113-20.

BackgroundBronchiolitis is the most common lower respiratory tract infection in infants and the leading cause of hospital admission. Hydration is a mainstay of treatment, but insufficient evidence exists to guide clinical practice. We aimed to assess whether intravenous hydration or nasogastric hydration is better for treatment of infants.MethodsIn this multicentre, open, randomised trial, we enrolled infants aged 2-12 months admitted to hospitals in Australia and New Zealand with a clinical diagnosis of bronchiolitis during three bronchiolitis seasons (April 1-Oct 31, in 2009, 2010, and 2011). We randomly allocated infants to nasogastric hydration or intravenous hydration by use of a computer-generated sequence and opaque sealed envelopes, with three randomly assigned block sizes and stratified by hospital site and age group (2-<6 months vs 6-12 months). The primary outcome was length of hospital stay, assessed in all randomly assigned infants. Secondary outcomes included rates of intensive-care unit admission, adverse events, and success of insertion. This trial is registered with the Australian and New Zealand clinical trials registry, ACTRN12605000033640.FindingsMean length of stay for 381 infants assigned nasogastric hydration was 86·6 h (SD 58·9) compared with 82·2 h (58·8) for 378 infants assigned intravenous hydration (absolute difference 4·5 h [95% CI -3·9 to 12·9]; p=0·30). Rates of admission to intensive-care units, need for ventilatory support, and adverse events did not differ between groups. At randomisation, seven infants assigned nasogastric hydration were switched to intravenous hydration and 56 infants assigned intravenous hydration were switched to nasogastric hydration because the study-assigned method was unable to be inserted. For those infants who had data available for successful insertion, 275 (85%) of 323 infants in the nasogastric hydration group and 165 (56%) of 294 infants in the intravenous hydration group required only one attempt for successful insertion.InterpretationIntravenous hydration and nasogastric hydration are appropriate means to hydrate infants with bronchiolitis. Nasogastric insertion might require fewer attempts and have a higher success rate of insertion than intravenous hydration.FundingAustralian National Health and Medical Research Council, Samuel Nissen Charitable Foundation (Perpetual), Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Victorian Government.Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

26 keywords...

hide…