Nasogastric Hydration Research Articles

Is Home Oxygen Therapy an Alternative to Hospitalization for Bronchiolitis?

Bronchiolitis is the leading cause of hospitalization in infants and children younger than age 2 years.1 Although recent data demonstrate that admissions for bronchiolitis are decreasing, the burden on the pediatric health care system remains substantial.2 The most common reasons for admission include hypoxia, increased work of breathing, and dehydration. Treatment remains largely supportive. Home treatment options targeting these areas have the potential to alleviate burden on both the health care system and individual family unit.In this issue of Pediatrics, Lawrence et al present a systematic review of literature relating to home oxygen and home nasogastric feeding for infants and toddlers with bronchiolitis.3 The review identified only 10 studies meeting inclusion criteria, all pertaining to home oxygen therapy (HOT). These studies demonstrated feasibility, acceptability, and safety among the high-altitude population but there are notably fewer data on HOT use at lower elevations. Although there is certainly a need for further research into HOT for bronchiolitis at sea level, it is also worth noting that 6 of these studies report data from growing or sustained HOT programs, with 2 reporting high levels of caregiver comfort and satisfaction, adding support to the acceptability, sustainability, and positive impact of HOT for bronchiolitis.The authors also note a paucity of data on health care cost-savings. A recent study from Rodríguez-Martínez et al used a cost-analysis modeling technique and found a potential significant cost savings in home therapy.4 Even without patient-level data, with the high cost of inpatient care, home care is likely to be less expensive than hospitalization in nearly all instances. It is also important to recognize that there are significant costs associated with hospitalization that are difficult to quantify, including the nonmedical costs to the family such as caregiver workdays missed, the cost of childcare for siblings, and disruption to parenting plans that may be associated with hospitalization of a child.Barriers to implementation and feasibility concerns clearly remain. Interestingly, the pandemic may provide some answers with recent literature describing the use of HOT for hypoxic adults with COVID-19, a process begun during the unprecedented volume of emergency department (ED) and hospitalized patients who accompanied the pandemic.5 This suggests that HOT programs may be implemented safely and quickly, even at sea level. Although some of the HOT literature describes ED-initiated HOT, thereby circumventing hospitalization entirely, short-stay, observation, and inpatient units may be the most feasible starting point for new HOT programs, allowing for more time to coordinate discharge planning and working with primary care providers for follow-up.The authors also suggest a potential role for home management of infants traditionally admitted for observation only, with neither supplemental oxygen nor hydration support. Although this is a cohort that could benefit from recent advances in telehealth capabilities, we would caution against the addition of home pulse oximetry monitoring, which is already overrelied on in decision-making in patients with bronchiolitis, difficult for providers to ignore, and linked to increase in hospitalization and length of stay.6 The use of home pulse oximetry could result in an increase in ED visits and hospitalizations in a system not prepared to provide other home care services such as HOT.Moving forward, the current health care climate of understaffed and overcrowded hospitals will likely necessitate changes in the way that we care for patients. The establishment of home care programs such as HOT may be a worthwhile investment for systems that are experiencing hospital bed shortages and boarding patients in EDs. The current data do demonstrate that HOT can decrease length of stay, and improve family-centered care. In regions where dehydration, more than hypoxia, drives bronchiolitis admissions, trials of home nasogastric hydration may be useful. Sharing of data on the implementation logistics used by successful HOT programs for bronchiolitis could be useful for other interested institutions to move forward with implementation of HOT programs and the research that may reaffirm their benefits.

Method of Hydration for Infants Admitted With Bronchiolitis: Physician or Parental Choice?

ObjectivesThis study examines the practice patterns with respect to the technique of non-oral hydration of infants admitted with bronchiolitis at one Canadian tertiary care institution. Additionally, the authors assess the infants’ parents’ attitudes regarding hydration through a nasogastric (NG) tube instead of an intravenous (IV) line.MethodsA retrospective chart review was conducted for all infants admitted with bronchiolitis from May 1, 2016, to April 30, 2018, with a focus on the method of hydration, investigation with chest radiography, and use of IV antibiotics. Parents of infants who received IV fluids during the admission were surveyed by mail to assess their perceptions surrounding their child's experience with IV fluid therapy as well as their attitudes toward NG hydration, particularly in cases of difficult IV access.ResultsOf the 101 hospitalized infants, 54 received IV fluids and four received NG fluids. Of the 54 eligible for the survey, 17 completed surveys were returned. Parents were likely to consider NG hydration if suggested by their pediatrician. The proportion was extremely or very likely to consider this intervention increased from 29% in a generic situation to 53% in a scenario where there was more than one unsuccessful IV attempt (p=0.03).ConclusionsIn the institution studied, NG hydration was rarely used. Parents seemed receptive to the idea of NG hydration as an alternative, particularly when IV access is difficult.

Things We DON'T Do for No Reason.

In 2010, Dr Howard Brody introduced the idea of “the top 5 list” in the New England Journal of Medicine , calling on medical specialties to identify items of overuse to provide high-value care.1 This led to the “choosing wisely” campaign to identify commonly overused measures in medicine in >70 different medical specialties.1 One aspect of this campaign is the “Things We Do For No Reason” articles in the Journal of Hospital Medicine , which focus on the evidence behind common overuse, overdiagnosis, or high-value care issues. These discussions are an important part of pediatric hospital medicine, and efforts to promote this subject must continue. As hospitalists, we also have an obligation to reassess things we should be doing. We will discuss 3 examples briefly in this article but encourage this discussion to continue, at conferences, meetings, and break rooms everywhere. Bronchiolitis is the most common reason infants are hospitalized, and over half require nonoral hydration.2,3 Multiple studies have shown that enteral and nasogastric hydration is comparable to intravenous (IV) hydration in terms of safety and tolerance.2,4,5 A large, randomized controlled trial of infants hospitalized with bronchiolitis did not reveal any significant difference in rates of ICU admission, oxygen therapy duration, ventilator support requirement, or length of stay when comparing IV with nasogastric hydration.2 In a 2018 survey, only 12% of physicians and nurses would choose nasogastric hydration for a healthy infant with bronchiolitis.6 Many practitioners reported concerns about nasal obstruction, parental resistance, and aspiration risk, and 66% did not know that nasogastric hydration was a documented …

13 Evaluating Potential Overuse of Intravenous Hydration in Patients Hospitalized with Bronchiolitis

Abstract Background Bronchiolitis is the primary cause of hospitalization in children during the first year of life. Respiratory support and hydration are the two pillars of management. Practice guidelines for bronchiolitis (NICE and CPS) recommend nasogastric (NG) hydration before intravenous (IV) fluids if oral hydration cannot be maintained. However, IV hydration remains the primary mode of hydration at our tertiary care pediatric centre. Objectives This is a resource stewardship project aiming to evaluate the baseline use of IV versus NG hydration in children 0-15 months hospitalized for bronchiolitis and requiring supplemental hydration. The secondary objective is to evaluate potential barriers to NG hydration for these children. Design/Methods Data was collected retrospectively for the 2017-2018 bronchiolitis season. A survey was sent to all the pediatric emergency (ED) physicians and nurses, pediatric hospitalists, ED fellows, pediatric residents and ward nurses. Results Among eligible patients (n=95), IV hydration was prescribed 52% of the time, compared to 48% NG hydration. Ninety-six percent (47/49) of IV hydration was initiated in the ED, while only 4% (2/49) was initiated on the ward. Among patients who began receiving hydration in the ED (80/95, or 84%), 41% (33/80) were hydrated via NG and 59% (47/80) by IV. In the survey, while 92% (57/62) of responding physicians claimed to be aware of national guidelines for bronchiolitis, only 67% (42/62) said that NG was the recommended mode of hydration. Among ED practitioners, 56% (19/34) were up-to-date on the recommendation. Two-thirds of all respondents (physicians and nurses) felt that NG hydration would be more acceptable to parents. Among nurses, 84% (38/45) felt that IV installation was a longer procedure to complete. Despite the existence of a local order set indicating NG hydration as the preferred hydration method, only 64% (40/62) of physicians were aware of its existence, and only 23% of these (9/40) actually use the guideline. Main reasons of disuse included forgetting the guideline exists and it not being easily available. In contrast, 93% of nurses were aware of the local guideline. Conclusion Intravenous hydration is overused among patients hospitalized with bronchiolitis at our centre, and the ED is the main setting where this occurs. There is a discrepancy between physicians’ theoretical knowledge of hydration guidelines and the application of these in reality. Barriers to the use of NG hydration can be amenable to a quality improvement (QI) intervention targeting improved knowledge and use of our local guideline, and this will be our focus going forward.

Improving Evidence Based Bronchiolitis Care

Bronchiolitis is the number one cause of hospitalization in infants during the first year of life. Clinical guidelines recommend primarily supportive care and discourage use of pharmacotherapies and diagnostics. However, there continues to be widespread use of non-recommended therapies and variation in the use of therapeutic interventions among hospitals in the United States. Here we review evidence-based management of this common disease in order to optimize resource utilization, decrease healthcare costs, and decrease unnecessary hospitalization. Current evidence does not support the routine use of chest radiographs, viral testing or laboratory evaluation in children with bronchiolitis. In addition, routine administration of bronchodilators, including albuterol and nebulized epinephrine, corticosteroids and hypertonic saline are not recommended for infants and children with bronchiolitis. Intravenous or nasogastric hydration and nutritional support, supplemental oxygen, and respiratory support are recommended. Standardization of bronchiolitis care with evidence based institutional clinical pathways spanning ED to inpatient care can help optimize resource utilization while simultaneously improving care of bronchiolitis and reducing hospital length of stays and costs.

Quality Improvement Initiative to Increase the Use of Nasogastric Hydration in Infants With Bronchiolitis.

Intravenous (IV) hydration is used primarily in children with bronchiolitis at our institution. Because nasogastric (NG) hydration can provide better nutrition, the goal of our quality improvement (QI) initiative was to increase the rate of NG hydration in eligible children 1 to 23 months old with bronchiolitis by 20% over 6 months. We used Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles to increase the use of NG hydration in eligible children. Interventions included educational and system-based changes and sharing parental feedback with providers. Chart reviews were performed to identify the rates of NG hydration, which were plotted over time in a statistical process control p chart. The balancing measure was the rate of complications in children with NG versus IV hydration. Two hundred and ninety-three children who were hospitalized with bronchiolitis needed supplemental hydration during the QI initiative (January 2016-April 2016). Ninety-one children were candidates for NG hydration, and 53 (58%) received NG hydration. The rates of NG hydration increased from a baseline of 0% pre-QI bronchiolitis season (January 2015-April 2015) to 58% during the initiative. There was no aspiration and no accidental placement of the NG tube into a child's airway. Nine patients (17%) in the NG group had a progression of disease requiring nil per os status, and 6 of these were transferred to the PICU whereas none of those in the IV group were transferred to the PICU. Post-QI initiative, the majority of nurses (63%) and physicians (95%) stated that they are more likely to consider NG hydration in children with bronchiolitis. We successfully increased the rates of NG hydration in eligible children with bronchiolitis by using educational and system-based interventions.

Economic evaluation of nasogastric versus intravenous hydration in infants with bronchiolitis.

Bronchiolitis is the most common lower respiratory tract infection in infants and the leading cause of hospitalisation. We aimed to assess whether intravenous hydration (IVH) was more cost-effective than nasogastric hydration (NGH) as a planned secondary economic analysis of a randomised trial involving 759 infants (aged 2-12 months) admitted to hospital with a clinical diagnosis of bronchiolitis and requiring non-oral hydration. No Australian cost data exist to aid clinicians in decision-making around interventions in bronchiolitis. Cost data collections included hospital and intervention-specific costs. The economic analysis was reduced to a cost-minimisation study, focusing on intervention-specific costs of IVH versus NGH, as length of stay was equal between groups. All analyses are reported as intention to treat. Intervention costs were greater for IVH than NGH ($113 vs $74; cost difference of $39 per child). The intervention-specific cost advantage to NGH was robust to inter-site variation in unit prices and treatment activity. Intervention-specific costs account for <10% of total costs of bronchiolitis admissions, with NGH having a small cost saving across all sites.

Nasogastric Hydration in Infants with Bronchiolitis Less Than 2 Months of Age

To determine whether nasogastric hydration can be used in infants less than 2 months of age with bronchiolitis, and characterize the adverse events profile of these infants compared with infants given intravenous (IV) fluid hydration. A descriptive retrospective cohort study of children with bronchiolitis under 2 months of age admitted for hydration at 3 centers over 3 bronchiolitis seasons was done. We determined type of hydration (nasogastric vs IV fluid hydration) and adverse events, intensive care unit admission, and respiratory support. Of 491 infants under 2 months of age admitted with bronchiolitis, 211 (43%) received nonoral hydration: 146 (69%) via nasogastric hydration and 65 (31%) via IV fluid hydration. Adverse events occurred in 27.4% (nasogastric hydration) and 23.1% (IV fluid hydration), difference of 4.3%; 95%CI (-8.2 to 16.9), P = .51. The majority of adverse events were desaturations (21.9% nasogastric hydration vs 21.5% IV fluid hydration, difference 0.4%; [-11.7 to 12.4], P = .95). There were no pulmonary aspirations in either group. Apneas and bradycardias were similar in each group. IV fluid hydration use was positively associated with intensive care unit admission (38.5% IV fluid hydration vs 19.9% nasogastric hydration; difference 18.6%, [5.1-32.1], P = .004); and use of ventilation support (27.7% IV fluid hydration vs 15.1% nasogastric hydration; difference 12.6 [0.3-23], P = .03). Fewer infants changed from nasogastric hydration to IV fluid hydration than from IV fluid hydration to nasogastric hydration (12.3% vs 47.7%; difference -35.4% [-49 to -22], P < .001). Nasogastric hydration can be used in the majority of young infants admitted with bronchiolitis. Nasogastric hydration and IV fluid hydration had similar rates of complications.

Nasogastric hydration versus intravenous hydration for infants with bronchiolitis: a randomised trial

Bronchiolitis 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. In 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. Mean 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. Intravenous 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. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Samuel Nissen Charitable Foundation (Perpetual), Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Victorian Government.

Dehydration Treatment Practices Among Pediatrics-Trained and Non–Pediatrics Trained Emergency Physicians

We sought to survey emergency physicians in the United States regarding the management of pediatric dehydration secondary to acute gastroenteritis. We hypothesized that responses from physicians with dedicated pediatric training (PT), that is, board certification in pediatrics or pediatric emergency medicine, would differ from responses of physicians with no dedicated pediatric training (non-PT). An anonymous survey was mailed to randomly selected members of the American College of Emergency Physicians and sent electronically to enrollees of Brown University pediatric emergency medicine listserv. The survey consisted of 17 multiple-choice questions based on a clinical scenario depicting a 2-year-old with acute gastroenteritis and moderate dehydration. Questions asked related to treatment preferences, practice setting, and training information. One thousand sixty-nine surveys were received: 997 surveys were used for data analysis, including 269 PT physicians and 721 non-PT physicians. Seventy-nine percent of PT physicians correctly classified the scenario patient as moderately dehydrated versus 71% of non-PT physicians (P = 0.063). Among those who correctly classified the patient, 121 PT physicians (58%) and 350 non-PT physicians (68%) would initially hydrate the patient with intravenous fluids. Pediatrics-trained physicians were more likely to initially choose oral or nasogastric hydration compared with non-PT physicians (P = 0.0127). Pediatrics-trained physicians were less likely to perform laboratory testing compared with the non-PT group (n = 92, 45%, vs n = 337, 66%; P < 0.0001). Contrary to established recommendations for the management of moderately dehydrated children, significantly more PT physicians, compared with non-PT physicians, follow established guidelines.

Comparison of Nasogastric and Intravenous Methods of Rehydration in Pediatric Patients With Acute Dehydratio

To assess the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of rapid nasogastric hydration (RNG) and rapid intravenous hydration (RIV) administered in the emergency department (ED) to young children suffering with uncomplicated, acute moderate dehydration. Ninety-six children aged 3 to 36 months, who presented with signs and symptoms of uncomplicated, acute moderate dehydration caused by vomiting and/or diarrhea, presumed to be caused by viral gastroenteritis, were randomly assigned to receive either RNG with a standard oral rehydration solution or RIV with normal saline. Each solution was administered at a rate of 50 mL/kg of body weight, delivered over a 3-hour period in our urban pediatric ED. All participants were weighed pretreatment and posttreatment and underwent initial and final measurements of their serum electrolytes, blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, and glucose levels, along with urine chemistry and urine specific gravity. Telephone follow-up by completion of a standardized questionnaire was obtained approximately 24 hours after discharge from the ED. Ninety-two of 96 enrolled patients completed the study. Three patients failed treatment (2 RIV and 1 RNG) and were excluded and hospitalized because of severe, intractable vomiting, and 1 patient was withdrawn secondary to an intussusception. Among 92 evaluable patients, 2 were found to be severely dehydrated (>10% change in body weight) and were excluded from analysis, leaving 90 patients (RNG: N = 46 and RIV: N = 44), who completed the study. Both RNG and RIV were found to be a safe and efficacious means of treating uncomplicated, acute moderate dehydration in the ED. Determinations of electrolytes, blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, or glucose were not found to be of value on an intent-to-treat basis in the care of these patients. The urine specific gravity and incidence of ketonuria declined from levels commensurate with moderate dehydration in the RNG group, but not as consistently so in the RIV group. Both RNG and RIV were substantially less expensive to administer than standard care with intravenous fluid deficit therapy in-hospital, and RNG was more cost-effective to administer over RIV in the outpatient setting. RNG and RIV administered in the ED are safe, efficacious, and cost-effective alternatives to the standard treatment for uncomplicated, acute moderate dehydration in young children. RNG is as efficacious as RIV, is no more labor intensive than RIV, and is associated with fewer complications. In addition, we found that most routine laboratory testing is of little value in these patients and should be avoided, except when clearly clinically indicated.

COMPARISON OF NASOGASTRIC AND INTRAVENOUS METHODS OF REHYDRATION IN PEDIATRIC PATIENTS WITH ACUTE DEHYDRATION

Objective. To assess the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of rapid nasogastric hydration (RNG) and rapid intravenous hydration (RIV) administered in the emergency department (ED) to young children suffering with uncomplicated, acute moderate dehydration. Methods. Ninety-six children aged 3 to 36 months, who presented with signs and symptoms of uncomplicated, acute moderate dehydration caused by vomiting and/or diarrhea, presumed to be caused by viral gastroenteritis, were randomly assigned to receive either RNG with a standard oral rehydration solution or RIV with normal saline. Each solution was administered at a rate of 50 mL/kg of body weight, delivered over a 3-hour period in our urban pediatric ED. All participants were weighed pretreatment and posttreatment and underwent initial and final measurements of their serum electrolytes, blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, and glucose levels, along with urine chemistry and urine specific gravity. Telephone follow-up by completion of a standardized questionnaire was obtained approximately 24 hours after discharge from the ED. Results. Ninety-two of 96 enrolled patients completed the study. Three patients failed treatment (2 RIV and 1 RNG) and were excluded and hospitalized because of severe, intractable vomiting, and 1 patient was withdrawn secondary to an intussusception. Among 92 evaluable patients, 2 were found to be severely dehydrated (>10% change in body weight) and were excluded from analysis, leaving 90 patients (RNG: N = 46 and RIV: N = 44), who completed the study. Both RNG and RIV were found to be a safe and efficacious means of treating uncomplicated, acute moderate dehydration in the ED. Determinations of electrolytes, blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, or glucose were not found to be of value on an intent-to-treat basis in the care of these patients. The urine specific gravity and incidence of ketonuria declined from levels commensurate with moderate dehydration in the RNG group, but not as consistently so in the RIV group. Both RNG and RIV were substantially less expensive to administer than standard care with intravenous fluid deficit therapy in-hospital, and RNG was more cost-effective to administer over RIV in the outpatient setting. Conclusion. RNG and RIV administered in the ED are safe, efficacious, and cost-effective alternatives to the standard treatment for uncomplicated, acute moderate dehydration in young children. RNG is as efficacious as RIV, is no more labor intensive than RIV, and is associated with fewer complications. In addition, we found that most routine laboratory testing is of little value in these patients and should be avoided, except when clearly clinically indicated.

Dehydration and hydration in the terminally ill: care considerations.

Debate continues about whether to withhold or withdraw intravenous, subcutaneous, or nasogastric hydration in the terminally ill. Nurses may be confronted with situations where the terminally ill patient or family must make a decision regarding hydration. Therefore, nurses must be knowledgeable about terminal dehydration literature and research. This article is a review of the literature on terminal dehydration. The focus is on the definition of terminal dehydration, physiological benefits and disadvantages of terminal dehydration, rationale for hydrating, review of research in terminal dehydration, physiological basis for comfort in the terminally dehydrated, and suggestions for research and practice.