Use of oral rehydration therapy in the treatment of childhood diarrhoea in Douala, Cameroon

Introduction The use of oral rehydration solutions in our context remains limited. This study was conducted to analyze the rate of this use in Douala, Cameroon and thereby determine the factors associated with it. Method A cross-sectional survey was administered to parents of children aged five years and younger during a six-month study period. The studied variables focused on the socio-demographic data of the population, data on diarrhoea and its severity, data on oral rehydration salts (ORS), and data related to other interventions for diarrhoea. The chi-square test was used to qualify associations between variables, with the significance level being set at 5%. Results Overall, 672 people agreed to participate in the study. Among them, 418 (62.2%) correctly defined diarrhoea. When their children develop diarrhoea, the majority of the parents (348, 51.8%) reported seeking hospital assistance before any intervention, while 225 parents (33.5%) preferred the use of ORS first. Four hundred seventy-five parents (70.7%) had heard of ORS and among them 313 (65.9%) had actually given ORS to their children as treatment during these children’s most recent episodes of diarrhoea. Of the parents who had given their children ORS, 217 (69.3%) knew how to prepare it, and 122 (39.0%) knew how to administer it. One hundred thirty-five parents (20.1%) had administered metronidazole to treat their children’s diarrhoea. The age of the children, the parents’ level of education, and the number of children in the household significantly influenced the use or non-use of ORS (respectively, p < 0.001, p = 0.003 and p < 0.0001). Rehydration was correctly identified by 234 parents (34.8%) as the purpose of administering ORS. Conclusion The knowledge and the use of ORS in diarrhoea by the study sample was insufficient. The role of ORS was poorly known. Awareness campaigns can be carried out in order to improve the use of this effective intervention for diarrhoea.

Sodium bicarbonate versus isotonic saline solution to prevent contrast-induced nephropathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction: Contrast-induced nephropathy is one of the main causes of acute kidney injury and increased hospital-acquired morbidity and mortality. The use of sodium bicarbonate for nephroprotection has emerged as a preventative strategy; however, its efficacy is controversial compared to other strategies, such as hydration using 0.9% saline solution. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of sodium bicarbonate vs. hydration using 0.9% saline solution to prevent contrast-induced acute kidney injury. Methods: A systematic review of studies registered in the COCHRANE, PUBMED, MEDLINE, LILACS, SCIELO and EMBASE databases was conducted. Randomized controlled studies that evaluated the use of 0.9% saline solution vs. sodium bicarbonate to prevent contrast-induced nephropathy were included. Results: A total of 22 studies (5,686 patients) were included. Sodium bicarbonate did not decrease the risk of contrast-induced nephropathy (RD= 0.00; 95% CI= -0.02 to 0.03; p= 0.83; I2= 0%). No significant differences were found in the demand for renal replacement therapy (RD= 0.00; 95% CI= -0.01 to 0-01; I2= 0%; p= 0.99) or in mortality (RD= -0.00; 95% CI= -0.001 to 0.001; I2= 0%; p= 0.51). Conclusions: Sodium bicarbonate administration is not superior to the use of 0.9% saline solution for preventing contrast-induced nephropathy in patients with risk factors, nor is it better at reducing mortality or the need for renal replacement therapy.