- Geraldine O’Sullivan, consultant anaesthetist1,
- Bing Liu, research associate2,
- Darren Hart, agenda for change midwife3,
- Paul Seed, senior lecturer in medical statistics2,
- Andrew Shennan, professor of obstetrics2
- 1Department of Anaesthesia, St Thomas’ Hospital, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London SE1 7EH
- 2Maternal and Fetal Research Unit, King’s College London, London SE1 7EH
- 3Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust
- Correspondence to: A Shennan andrew.shennan{at}kcl.ac.uk
- Accepted 17 December 2008
Abstract
Objective To investigate the effect of feeding during labour on obstetric and neonatal outcomes.
Design Prospective randomised controlled trial.
Setting Birth centre in London teaching hospital.
Participants 2426 nulliparous, non-diabetic women at term, with a singleton cephalic presenting fetus and in labour with a cervical dilatation of less than 6 cm.
Intervention Consumption of a light diet or water during labour.
Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was spontaneous vaginal delivery rate. Other outcomes measured included duration of labour, need for augmentation of labour, instrumental and caesarean delivery rates, incidence of vomiting, and neonatal outcome.
Results The spontaneous vaginal delivery rate was the same in both groups (44%; relative risk 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 1.08). No clinically important differences were found in the duration of labour (geometric mean: eating, 597 min v water, 612 min; ratio of geometric means 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.03), the caesarean delivery rate (30% v 30%; relative risk 0.99, 0.87 to 1.12), or the incidence of vomiting (35% v 34%; relative risk 1.05, 0.9 to 1.2). Neonatal outcomes were also similar.
Conclusions Consumption of a light diet during labour did not influence obstetric or neonatal outcomes in participants, nor did it increase the incidence of vomiting. Women who are allowed to eat in labour have similar lengths of labour and operative delivery rates to those allowed water only.
Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33298015.
Footnotes
We are indebted to the mothers, midwives, anaesthetists, and obstetricians at St Thomas’ Hospital for their cooperation and consistent support.
Contributors: GO’S and AS successfully applied for the funding for this project. BL and DH ran the trial. BL and PS analysed the data. AS is the guarantor.
Funding: This study was supported by a grant from the Obstetric Anaesthetists’ Association and the Special Trustees of the St Thomas’ Hospital. AS is supported by Tommy’s—The Baby Charity.
Competing interests: None declared.
Ethical approval: The research protocol was reviewed and approved by the Local Ethics Committee.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: The comforts of spiritualism
Published 23 May 2012
Re: The hardest thing: admitting error
Published 23 May 2012
Ice cream headache as a new example of “Cold headache” in Avicenna’s manuscript
Published 23 May 2012
Re: Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial seriesCommentary: Larger trials are needed
Published 23 May 2012
Re: Testing athletes, and banning those who take drugs, is unjustifiable
Published 23 May 2012
Most responses
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (8 responses)
Published 2 May 2012
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (6 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32