Hemodynamic and Biochemical Effects of Intravenous versus Oral Fluids in Healthy Volunteers – A Protocol for a Randomized Crossover Trial

Why It Matters

Understanding whether oral hydration can match or exceed IV fluid effects may cut catheter‑related complications, lower costs, and broaden outpatient treatment options.

Key Takeaways

• Oral water may sustain MAP longer than IV fluids.
• Study uses crossover design to reduce inter‑subject variability.
• Primary endpoint: MAP change 30 minutes after fluid start.
• Secondary outcomes include CO, SVR, stroke volume, catecholamines.
• Results could lower IV line usage and healthcare costs.

Pulse Analysis

Intravenous fluid resuscitation remains a cornerstone of acute care, yet its hemodynamic benefits often wane within minutes. Oral hydration, while less invasive, may sustain blood pressure and cardiac output longer, but rigorous comparative data are scarce. Understanding these dynamics is critical as clinicians seek to balance efficacy, safety, and resource utilization in emergency and intensive settings. Moreover, shifting toward oral strategies could alleviate staffing burdens and reduce equipment sterilization demands, aligning with value‑based care initiatives. Such evidence also supports telemedicine triage models where patients receive oral rehydration at home.

The forthcoming Phase 1 crossover trial enrolls twenty healthy adults to receive one liter of chilled tap water orally or one liter of room‑temperature Ringer’s lactate intravenously, with a 24‑hour washout. Primary measurement focuses on mean arterial pressure thirty minutes post‑infusion, while secondary metrics capture cardiac output, systemic vascular resistance, stroke volume, and catecholamine shifts. This within‑subject design eliminates inter‑individual variability, delivering high‑resolution insight into the temporal profile of each fluid route. Findings could inform fluid protocols for early‑stage sepsis, dehydration, and peri‑operative care where rapid volume expansion is essential.

If oral hydration demonstrates comparable or longer‑lasting MAP elevation, clinicians could favor it for mild hypotension, reducing catheter‑related infections and IV supply costs. Hospitals may see lower admission rates for dehydration, translating into measurable savings and improved patient comfort. Moreover, the trial’s biochemical endpoints could illuminate neurohormonal responses, guiding future research on fluid‑type selection across diverse patient populations. Health economists estimate that each avoided IV line saves roughly $150 in equipment and labor, suggesting sizable budgetary impact if oral protocols become standard practice.