Are serum delta neutrophil index and other inflammatory marker levels different in hyperemesis gravidarum

MakaleWOS:000911852000001PubMed ID : 36627732Hyperemesis gravidarum (HEG) is a condition characterized by nausea and vomiting, fluid electrolyte and acid–base imbalance, dehydration, weight loss, and ketonuria in early pregnancy. The relationship of HEG with inflammation has been studied in many studies. This study aimed to investigate the role of serum delta neutrophil index (DNI), a new inflammatory marker, and other inflammatory markers in demonstrating the disease’s presence and severity in HEG patients

Maternal and fetal outcomes in pregnant women with hyperemesis gravidarum

Background: Hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) is associated with maternal weight loss, nutritional deficiencies, fluid and electrolyte abnormalities, which may lead to adverse fetal and maternal outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship of hyperemesis gravidarum to maternal and foetal outcomes.Methods: A hospital-based prospective observational study was carried out. All patients with singleton pregnancy diagnosed as / history of hyperemesis gravidarum the current pregnancy was included in the study. The pregnant women with multiple pregnancy, molar pregnancy, presence of pre-gestational diabetes, pre-gestational hypertension, and other causes of nausea such as appendicitis and pyelonephritis were excluded from the study.Results: 36 pregnant women with prevalence rate of 3.28% have been found to be suffering from HG. Almost half (17, 47.22%) of the pregnant women with HG had age less than 25 years. The significant association (p-value: 0.0099) has been found between parity and smoking with HG. HG was significantly associated with low birth weight (p-value: 0.0133); small for gestational age (SGA) (p-value: 0.0316); APGAR score < 7 after 1 minute (p-value: 0.0060); and APGAR score <7 after 5 minutes (p-value: 0.0006). There is no association found between mode of delivery, gestational diabetes, and pregnancy-induced hypertension with HG.Conclusions: HG can adversely affect fetal as well as maternal, though not significant, pregnancy outcomes

Helicobacter pylori infection and hyperemesis gravidarum: a prospective pilot study in India

Background: About 80% of all pregnant women experience some form of nausea and vomiting during their pregnancy. Hyperemesis gravidarum, the commonest indication for admission to hospital in the first half of pregnancy affects approximately 0.3%-2.0% of pregnancies. Helicobacter pylori infection has been implicated in the cause of nausea and occasional vomiting in early pregnancy. The objectives of this study are to determine the proportion of H. pylori seropositivity among women with hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) and determine its relation with socio-economic status.Methods: This was a prospective study conducted in a tertiary hospital in Bangalore among 60 pregnant women with HG for a period of 12 months. Venous blood samples were obtained and serum IgG for H. pylori was measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbant assay (ELISA). Details regarding socioeconomic status, recurrence of symptoms and severity were noted.Results: The proportion of H. pylori seropositivity among pregnant women with hyperemesis in our study was 70%.There was a significant increase in severity and recurrence of vomiting among seropositive cases. Women belonging to rural areas had 1.17 times the risk of infection compared to women with urban area. We also found women belonging to the lower socioeconomic status had 0.52 times more risk to develop Helicobacter pylori infection.Conclusions: This study suggests that H. pylori is an independent risk factor for vomiting in pregnancy. Effective treatment and eradication of H pylori infection may help reduce severity and recurrence of vomiting among positive cases thus reducing its adverse consequences

A study to identify clinical and laboratory parameters in cases of excessive vomiting in early pregnancy

Background: Around half of all pregnant women experience vomiting, and more than 80% of women experience nausea in the first 12 weeks. Women with severe nausea and vomiting during pregnancy may have hyperemesis gravidarum (HG), an entity distinct from nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP), which if left untreated may lead to significant maternal and foetal morbidity. In our study, we studied, clinical and laboratory parameters in patients presenting with excessive vomiting. The study may help in evaluating what is the major clinical problem encountered during treatment and how many days of care are needed in such cases.Methods: The study design was a prospective observational study. Patients attending the ANC clinic and emergency indoor cases at Peoples college of medical sciences, Bhopal were considered as study population. 100 patients who satisfied inclusion and exclusion criteria were included in the study. Patient’s sociodemographic variables, detailed obstetric history, clinical and laboratory parameters were recorded. Results obtained were analysed and tabulated.Results: Persistence of vomiting in the first trimester leading to dehydration and hospitalization was documented in 12% of patients. The 5% of then had metabolic acidosis and 1% required correction of starvation ketoacidosis, but there was not significant weight loss observed in any of the case. Liver function test were normal in almost in all cases except 9% had raised serum alkaline phosphatase levels.Conclusions: All cases with vomiting in early pregnancy should receive attention and exclusion of all emergency clinical conditions. Patient should be screened for urine tract infection and diabetes in all cases.

Early nasogastric tube feeding in optimising treatment for hyperemesis gravidarum: The MOTHER randomised controlled trial (Maternal and Offspring outcomes after Treatment of HyperEmesis by Refeeding)

Background: Hyperemesis gravidarum (HG), or intractable vomiting during pregnancy, is the single most frequent cause of hospital admission in early pregnancy. HG has a major impact on maternal quality of life and has repeatedly been associated with poor pregnancy outcome such as low birth weight. Currently, women with HG are admitted to hospital for intravenous fluid replacement, without receiving specific nutritional attention. Nasogastric tube feeding is sometimes used as last resort treatment. At present no randomised trials on dietary or rehydration interventions have been performed. Small observational studies indicate that enteral tube feeding may have the ability to effectively treat dehydration and malnutrition and alleviate nausea and vomiting symptoms. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of early enteral tube feeding in addition to standard care on nausea and vomiting symptoms and pregnancy outcomes in HG patients. Methods/Design: The MOTHER trial is a multicentre open label randomised controlled trial ( www.studies-obsgyn.nl/mother ). Women ≥ 18 years hospitalised for HG between 5 + 0 and 19 + 6 weeks gestation are eligible for participation. After informed consent participants are randomly allocated to standard care with intravenous rehydration or early enteral tube feeding in addition to standard care. All women keep a weekly diary to record symptoms and dietary intake until 20 weeks gestation. The primary outcome will be neonatal birth weight. Secondary outcomes will be the 24-h Pregnancy Unique Quantification of Emesis and nausea score (PUQE-24), maternal weight gain, dietary intake, duration of hospital stay, number of readmissions, quality of life and side-effects. Also gestational age at birth, placental weight, umbilical cord plasma lipid concentration and neonatal morbidity will be evaluated. Analysis will be according to the intention to treat principle. Discussion: With this trial we aim to clarify whether early enteral tube feeding is more effective in treating HG than intravenous rehydration alone and improves pregnancy outcome. Trial registration: Trial registration number: NTR4197. Date of registration: October 2nd 2013

Nausea and Vomiting of Early Pregnancy

Nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy is very common. The severest form, hyperemesis gravidarum,is important as mismanagement can lead to Wernicke’s encephalopathy, central pontine myelosis and death. There is a lack of high-quality evidence in the management of nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy and in the safety of the commonly used drugs, especially the reported side effects and their management. Pregnancies following bariatric surgery are becoming more frequent and care should be taken managing nausea and vomiting in this group since thiamine is primarily absorbed in the small intestine, and Wernicke’s encephalopathy has been described following some types of bariatric surgery. Severe cases of hyperemesis gravidarum warrant caution as Wernicke’s has been described following total parenteral nutrition,and it must be remembered that thiamine needs to be supplemented in this group. The etiology remains unknown and there is scope for research in this area

Managing hyperemesis gravidarum: a multimodal challenge

Up to 90% of pregnant women experience nausea and vomiting. When prolonged or severe, this is known as hyperemesis gravidarum (HG), which can, in individual cases, be life threatening. In this article the aetiology, diagnosis and treatment strategies will be presented based on a selective literature review. Treatment strategies range from outpatient dietary advice and antiemetic drugs to hospitalization and intravenous (IV) fluid replacement in persistent or severe cases. Alternative methods, such as acupuncture, are not yet evidence based but sometimes have a therapeutic effect

Interventions for treating hyperemesis gravidarum.

BACKGROUND: Hyperemesis gravidarum is a severe form of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy affecting 0.3% to 1.0% of pregnancies, and is one of the most common indications for hospitalization during pregnancy. While a previous Cochrane review examined interventions for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy, there has not yet been a review examining the interventions for the more severe condition of hyperemesis gravidarum. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety, of all interventions for hyperemesis gravidarum in pregnancy up to 20 weeks\u27 gestation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group\u27s Trials Register and the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field\u27s Trials Register (20 December 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of any intervention for hyperemesis gravidarum. Quasi-randomized trials and trials using a cross-over design were not eligible for inclusion.We excluded trials on nausea and vomiting of pregnancy that were not specifically studying the more severe condition of hyperemesis gravidarum. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently reviewed the eligibility of trials, extracted data and evaluated the risk of bias. Data were checked for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-five trials (involving 2052 women) met the inclusion criteria but the majority of 18 different comparisons described in the review include data from single studies with small numbers of participants. The comparisons covered a range of interventions including acupressure/acupuncture, outpatient care, intravenous fluids, and various pharmaceutical interventions. The methodological quality of included studies was mixed. For selected important comparisons and outcomes, we graded the quality of the evidence and created \u27Summary of findings\u27 tables. For most outcomes the evidence was graded as low or very low quality mainly due to the imprecision of effect estimates. Comparisons included in the \u27Summary of findings\u27 tables are described below, the remaining comparisons are described in detail in the main text.No primary outcome data were available when acupuncture was compared with placebo, There was no clear evidence of differences between groups for anxiodepressive symptoms (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.40; one study, 36 women, very low-quality evidence), spontaneous abortion (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.03; one study, 57 women, low-quality evidence), preterm birth (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.26; one study, 36 women, low-quality evidence), or perinatal death (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.04 to 8.30; one study, 36 women, low-quality evidence).There was insufficient evidence to identify clear differences between acupuncture and metoclopramide in a study with 81 participants regarding reduction/cessation in nausea or vomiting (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.49 and RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.48, respectively; very low-quality evidence).In a study with 92 participants, women taking vitamin B6 had a slightly longer hospital stay compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) 0.80 days, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.52, moderate-quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a difference in other outcomes including mean number of episodes of emesis (MD 0.50, 95% CI -0.40 to 1.40, low-quality evidence) or side effects.A comparison between metoclopramide and ondansetron identified no clear difference in the severity of nausea or vomiting (MD 1.70, 95% CI -0.15 to 3.55, and MD -0.10, 95% CI -1.63 to 1.43; one study, 83 women, respectively, very low-quality evidence). However, more women taking metoclopramide complained of drowsiness and dry mouth (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.23 to 4.69, and RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.10 to 5.11, respectively; moderate-quality evidence). There were no clear differences between groups for other side effects.In a single study with 146 participants comparing metoclopramide with promethazine, more women taking promethazine reported drowsiness, dizziness, and dystonia (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.87, RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.69, and RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.90, respectively, moderate-quality evidence). There were no clear differences between groups for other important outcomes including quality of life and other side effects.In a single trial with 30 women, those receiving ondansetron had no difference in duration of hospital admission compared to those receiving promethazine (MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.39 to 1.39, very low-quality evidence), although there was increased sedation with promethazine (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.94, low-quality evidence) .Regarding corticosteroids, in a study with 110 participants there was no difference in days of hospital admission compared to placebo (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.70 to 0.10; very low-quality evidence), but there was a decreased readmission rate (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.94; four studies, 269 women). For other important outcomes including pregnancy complications, spontaneous abortion, stillbirth and congenital abnormalities, there was insufficient evidence to identify differences between groups (very low-quality evidence for all outcomes). In other single studies there were no clear differences between groups for preterm birth or side effects (very low-quality evidence).For hydrocortisone compared with metoclopramide, no data were available for primary outcomes and there was no difference in the readmission rate (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.28;one study, 40 women).In a study with 80 women, compared to promethazine, those receiving prednisolone had increased nausea at 48 hours (RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.72; low-quality evidence), but not at 17 days (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.15, very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in the number of episodes of emesis or subjective improvement in nausea/vomiting. There was insufficient evidence to identify differences between groups for stillbirth and neonatal death and preterm birth. AUTHORS\u27 CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of this review, there is little high-quality and consistent evidence supporting any one intervention, which should be taken into account when making management decisions. There was also very limited reporting on the economic impact of hyperemesis gravidarum and the impact that interventions may have.The limitations in interpreting the results of the included studies highlights the importance of consistency in the definition of hyperemesis gravidarum, the use of validated outcome measures, and the need for larger placebo-controlled trials