Highlights
- •Survey regarding oral intake in labor in units in Israel.
- •Practices varied between disciplines, midwives were significantly more permissive.
- •Women received conflicting recommendations.
- •There is a lack of awareness of the risks associated with oral intake in labor.
- •There is a need for standardized guidelines and patient risk stratification.
Abstract
Introduction
Different society guidelines diverge regarding oral intake in labor. Our goal was
to assess practices and opinions in Israeli labor and delivery units, comparing different
disciplines.
Methods
An anonymous Google Forms survey was sent to anesthesiologists, obstetricians and
midwives in all Israeli labor and delivery units.
Results
Responses were collected from all 27 labor and delivery units contacted, with a total
of 501 respondents comprising 161 anesthesiologists, 102 obstetricians and 238 midwives.
Forty-eight per cent stated there were no institutional guidelines for oral intake.
The most common oral intake permitted was light food (60%). Midwives were significantly
more likely than anesthesiologists and obstetricians to consider that women who are
both low risk for cesarean delivery (P <0.00001) and high risk for cesarean delivery (P=0.001) should eat. Epidural analgesia did not impact recommendations regarding oral
intake. The most common reasons for restricting oral intake were obstetric. Sixty-two
per cent identified aspiration as the main risk associated with eating during labor,
but 19% of midwives compared with 4% of anesthesiologists and obstetricians stated
there were no risks (P <0.00001). The annual delivery volume of the unit did not impact staff practices.
Conclusions
There was a discrepancy between opinions and practices across all disciplines. Permissive
practices identified in this survey should be addressed to find the safe middle ground
between restrictive and permissive policies for low- and high-risk women.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to International Journal of Obstetric AnesthesiaAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- The aspiration of stomach contents into the lungs during obstetric anesthesia.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1946; 52: 191-206https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9378(16)39829-5
- Peripartum changes in gastric emptying.Anaesthesia. 1992; 47: 196-198https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.1992.tb02116.x
- Oral intake policies on labor and delivery: a national survey.J Clin Anesth. 1998; 10: 449-451https://doi.org/10.1016/s0952-8180(98)00054-3
- Restrictions on oral and parenteral intake for low risk labouring women in hospitals across Canada: a cross-sectional study.J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2016; 38: 1009-1014https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2016.08.003
The Royal Society of Medicine Journals. Confidential enquiry into maternal and child health (CEMACH). Saving mothers’ lives: reviewing maternal deaths to make motherhood safer 2003–2005. The seventh report of the confidential enquiries into maternal deaths in the UK. Obstet Med. 2008;1:54.
- Women's view on fasting during labor in a tertiary care obstetric unit. A prospective cohort study.Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020; 253: 25-30https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.07.041
- Food and beverages in labor. Part i: cross-cultural and historical practices.Birth. 1988; 15: 81-85https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-536x.1988.tb00811.x
ACOG Committee Opinion No. 441: Oral intake during labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:714. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181ba0649.
Practice Guidelines for Obstetric Anesthesia: An Updated Report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Obstetric Anesthesia and the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology. Anesthesiology. 2016;124:270-300. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000000935.
Care in normal birth: a practical guide. Technical Working Group, World Health Organization. Birth. 1997;24:121-123.
Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. Healthy beginnings: guidelines for care during pregnancy and childbirth. SOGC Clinical Practice Guidelines. 1998;72.
Israel Society of Anesthesiologists, Clinical Guidelines, 2019.
Singata M, Tranmer J, Gyte GM. Restricting oral fluid and food intake during labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;8:CD003930. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003930.pub3.
- Policies for oral intake in labour.Anaesthesia. 1991; 46: 1071-1073https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.1991.tb09928.x
- Aspects of food and fluid intake during labour: policies of midwives and obstetricians in the Netherlands.Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1998; 78: 37-40https://doi.org/10.1016/s0301-2115(98)00007-4
- A 10-year update: national survey questionnaire of obstetric anesthesia units in Israel.Int J Obstet Anesth. 2019; 38: 83-92https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijoa.2018.10.014
- A midwifery practice dichotomy on oral intake in labour.Midwifery. 2014; 20: 72-81https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-6138(03)00055-X
- Maternal outcomes in women supplemented with a high-protein drink in labour.Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013; 53: 369-374https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.12079
- An evaluation of isotonic “sport drinks” during labor.Anesth Analg. 2002; 94: 404-408https://doi.org/10.1097/00000539-200202000-00033
- A comparison of the effect of intrathecal and extradural fentanyl on gastric emptying in laboring women.Anesth Analg. 1997; 85: 834-838https://doi.org/10.1097/00000539-199710000-00022
- Tolerable pain reduces gastric fundal accommodation and gastric motility in healthy subjects: a crossover ultrasonographic study.Biopsychosoc Med. 2017; 1: 4https://doi.org/10.1186/s13030-017-0089-5
- Policy or tradition: oral intake in labour.Aust J Midwifery. 2001; 3: 6-12https://doi.org/10.1016/s1445-4386(01)80017-3
Article info
Publication history
Published online: September 05, 2022
Accepted:
August 31,
2022
Identification
Copyright
© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
