Drinking during low-risk labor: monocentric randomized clinical trial on patients’ satisfaction, and maternal and neonatal outcomes

Abstract

Introduction

This study aimed to assess satisfaction of patients affected by various fluid regimes during uncomplicated labor; to identify factors possibly associated with the level of satisfaction; to compare obstetrical and neonatal outcomes between the intervention groups.

Methods

Between October and December 2014, 40 women were included in the study set at the Poitiers University Hospital, France. Women were randomly allocated to two study arms: 20 to strict and 20 to liberal fluid regime group. Women’s satisfaction was assessed using visual analog scale. Categorical obstetrical and neonatal outcomes were analyzed using Chi-squared test and Fischer’s exact test. The between-group difference was assessed with Mann–Whitney U-test.

Results

Overall satisfaction was higher among women from the liberal fluid regime than from the strict fluid regime group (median score: 88, interquartile range [IQR]: 21 vs. 72, IQR: 21; p = 0.03). The active phase of the second stage of labor was shorter in the liberal fluid regime than in the strict fluid regime group (median 9 min, IQR: 7 vs. 17 min, IQR: 12; p = 0.02). The length of stay in the delivery room was significantly shorter in liberal fluid regime than in strict fluid regime group (median 190 min, IQR: 128 vs. 340 min, IQR: 195, p = 0.04). There were no significant differences in other obstetrical and neonatal outcomes.

Conclusion

Liberal fluid regime during labor was associated with significantly higher satisfaction of women. The active phase of the second stage of labor and the length of stay in the delivery room were significantly shorter in the liberal fluid regime group.

Keywords:

• Drinking
• labor
• obstetrics
• randomized controlled trial
• patient satisfaction

Acknowledgement

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).