A Randomized Controlled Study Comparing the Efficacy of Early Total Enteral Feeding with Conventional Enteral Feeding in Stable Very-LowBirth-Weight Infants
Authors/Creators
- 1. Associate Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, VSSIMSAR, Burla, Odisha, India
- 2. Associate Professor, Department of Paediatrics, VSSIMSAR, Burla, Odisha, India
- 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Paediatrics, VSSIMSAR, Burla, Odisha, India
- 4. Assistant Professor, Department of Pharmacology, VSSIMSAR, Burla, Odisha, India
- 5. Senior Resident, Department of Paediatrics, VSSIMSAR, Burla, Odisha, India
Description
Objective: To assess the impact of early total enteral feeding (ETEF) in comparison to conventional enteral feeding (CEF) on the postnatal age (in days) required for stable very-low-birth-weight (VLBW; 1,000–1,499 g) infants to achieve full enteral feeds. Methods: In this unblinded randomised controlled study, a total of 180 infants were assigned to either the ETEF group (n = 91) or the CEF group (n = 89). Feeding regimens were commenced as complete enteral feeds in the ETEF group and as minimal enteral nutrition (20 mL/kg) in the CEF group. The remaining daily fluid needs in the CEF group were administered via parenteral route. The primary outcome of the study focused on the postnatal age at which infants achieved full enteral feeds. The secondary outcomes encompassed occurrences of feed intolerance, prevalence of sepsis and necrotising enterocolitis (NEC), and length of hospitalisation. Results: The baseline variables, encompassing birth weight and gestational age, exhibited comparable characteristics within both cohorts. The neonates in the ETEF group achieved complete enteral nutrition at an earlier stage compared to those in the CEF group (6.5 ± 1.5 vs. 10.1 ± 4.1 days after birth; mean difference –3.6 [–4.5 to –2.7]; p < 0.001). The incidence of feed intolerance episodes and clinical sepsis was lower in the ETEF group, with a reduced length of hospitalisation (15.5 vs. 19.6 days) (p = 0.01). The occurrence of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) exhibited comparable rates within both study cohorts. Conclusion: The implementation of early total enteral feeding (ETEF) in stable very low birth weight (VLBW) infants leads to accelerated achievement of full feeds and reduces the length of hospitalization, without any heightened susceptibility to feed intolerance or necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC).
Abstract (English)
Objective: To assess the impact of early total enteral feeding (ETEF) in comparison to conventional enteral feeding (CEF) on the postnatal age (in days) required for stable very-low-birth-weight (VLBW; 1,000–1,499 g) infants to achieve full enteral feeds. Methods: In this unblinded randomised controlled study, a total of 180 infants were assigned to either the ETEF group (n = 91) or the CEF group (n = 89). Feeding regimens were commenced as complete enteral feeds in the ETEF group and as minimal enteral nutrition (20 mL/kg) in the CEF group. The remaining daily fluid needs in the CEF group were administered via parenteral route. The primary outcome of the study focused on the postnatal age at which infants achieved full enteral feeds. The secondary outcomes encompassed occurrences of feed intolerance, prevalence of sepsis and necrotising enterocolitis (NEC), and length of hospitalisation. Results: The baseline variables, encompassing birth weight and gestational age, exhibited comparable characteristics within both cohorts. The neonates in the ETEF group achieved complete enteral nutrition at an earlier stage compared to those in the CEF group (6.5 ± 1.5 vs. 10.1 ± 4.1 days after birth; mean difference –3.6 [–4.5 to –2.7]; p < 0.001). The incidence of feed intolerance episodes and clinical sepsis was lower in the ETEF group, with a reduced length of hospitalisation (15.5 vs. 19.6 days) (p = 0.01). The occurrence of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) exhibited comparable rates within both study cohorts. Conclusion: The implementation of early total enteral feeding (ETEF) in stable very low birth weight (VLBW) infants leads to accelerated achievement of full feeds and reduces the length of hospitalization, without any heightened susceptibility to feed intolerance or necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC).
Files
IJPCR,Vol15,Issue9,Article75.pdf
Files
(386.3 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:32fd0be89ab9e77cc865475037fa76e8
|
386.3 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Dates
- Accepted
-
2023-08-30
Software
- Repository URL
- https://impactfactor.org/PDF/IJPCR/15/IJPCR,Vol15,Issue9,Article75.pdf
- Development Status
- Active
References
- 1. Puntis JW. Nutritional support in the premature newborn. Postgrad Med J. 2006 Mar; 82(965):192–8. 2. Rayyis SF, Ambalavanan N, Wright L, Carlo WA. Randomized study of "slow" versus "fast" feed advancements on the incidence of necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants. J Pediatr. 1999 Mar; 134(3):293–7. 3. Caple J, Armentrout D, Huseby V, Halbardier B, Garcia J, Sparks JW, et al. Randomized, controlled study of slow versus rapid feeding volume advancement in preterm infants. Pediatrics. 2004 Dec; 114(6):1597–600. 4. Smith LE, Hard AL, Hellström A. The biology of retinopathy of prematurity: how knowledgeof pathogenesis guides treatment. Clin Perinatol. 2013 Jun; 40(2):201–14. 5. Morgan J, Young L, McGuire W. Delayed introduction of progressive enteral feeds to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; 12(12): CD001970. 6. Härtel C, Haase B, Browning-Carmo K, Gebauer C, Kattner E, Kribs A, et al. Does the enteral feeding advancement affect shortterm outcomes in very low birth weight ininfants? J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2009 Apr; 48(4):464–70. 7. Flidel-Rimon O, Friedman S, Lev E, JusterReicher A, Amitay M, Shinwell ES. Early enteral feeding and nosocomial sepsis in very low birth weight infants. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2004 Jul; 89(4):F289–92. 8. Salhotra A, Ramji S. Slow versus fast enteral feed advancement in very low birth weight ininfants: a randomized control study. Indian Pedi- atr. 2004 May; 41(5):435–41. 9. Krishnamurthy S, Gupta P, Debnath S, Gomber S. Slow versus rapid enteral feeding advancement in preterm newborn infants 1,000–1,499 g: a randomized controlled study. Acta Paediatr. 2010 Jan; 99(1):42–6. 10. Sanghvi KP, Joshi P, Nabi F, Kabra NK. Feasibility of exclusive enteral feeds from birth in VLBW infants 1,200 g – an RCT. Acta Paediatr. 2013 Jul; 102(7):e299–304. 11. Berseth CL, Bisquera JA, Paje VU. Prolonging small feeding volumes early in life decreases the incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants. Pediatrics. 2003 Mar; 111(3):529–34. 12. Karagianni P, Briana DD, Mitsiakos G, Elias A, Theodoridis T, Chatziioannidis E, et al.Early versus delayed minimal enteral feeding and risk for necrotizing enterocolitis in preterm growthrestricted infants with abnormal antenatal Doppler results. Am J Perinatol. 2010 May; 27(5):367–73. 13. Hook B, Smith K, Swank P, Miller C, Denson S, Landry S. Is the length of time to attain full feedings in very low birth weight (VLBW) infants related to early medical complications and/or developmental outcome at 24 months? Pediatr Res. 1997 abstract; 41199A. 14. Nangia S, Bishnoi A, Goel A, Mandal P, Tiwari S, Saili A. Early total enteral feeding in stable very low birth weight infants: a before and after study. J Trop Pediatr. 2018 Feb;64(1):24–30. 15. Ballard JL, Khoury JC, Wedig K, Wang L, Eilegs-Walsman BL, Lipp R. New Ballard Score expanded to include extremely premature infants. J Pediatr. 1991 Sep; 119(3):417–23. 16. Singh M, Giri SK, Ramachandran K. Intrauterine growth curves of live-born single babies. Indian Pediatr. 1974 Jul; 11(7):475–9. 17. Walsh MC, Kliegman RM. Necrotizing enterocolitis: treatment based on staging criteria. Pediatr Clin North Am. 1986 Feb; 33(1): 179–201. 18. Brierley J, Carcillo JA, Choong K, Cornell T, Decaen A, Deymann A, et al. Clinical practice parameters for hemodynamic support of pediatric and neonatal septic shock: 2007 update from the American College of Critical Care Medicine. Crit Care Med. 2009 Feb; 37(2): 666–88. 19. Mittal K, Gupta V, Khanna P, Kaushik JS, Sharma A. Evaluation of Integrated Management of Neonatal and Childhood Illness (IMNCI) algorithm for diagnosis and referral in under-five children. Indian J Pediatr. 2014 Aug; 81(8):797–9. 20. Da Silva O, Ohlsson A, Kenyon C. Accuracy of leukocyte indices and C-reactive protein for diagnosis of neonatal sepsis: a critical review. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1995 May; 14(5): 362–6. 21. Mahale R, Dutta S, Ahluwalia J, Kishore SS, Narang A. Baseline illness severity does not alter accuracy of neonatal sepsis screen. Am J Perinatol. 2010 Apr; 27(4):327–32. 22. Papile LA, Burstein J, Burstein R, Koffler H. Incidence and evolution of subependymal and intraventricular hemorrhage: a study of infants with birth weights less than 1,500 gm. J Pediatr. 1978 Apr; 92(4):529–34. 23. International Committee for the Classification of Retinopathy of Prematurity. International Classification of Retinopathy of Pre-maturity revisited. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005; 123(7):991– 9. 24. Skelton R, Evans N, Smythe J. A blinded comparison of clinical and echocardiographic evaluation of the preterm infant for patent ductus arteriosus. J Paediatr Child Health. 1994 Oct; 30(5):406–11. 25. Kandasamy Y. Infection control during administration of parenteral nutrition in preterm babies. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2009 Jan; 94(1):F78. 26. Berseth CL. Neonatal small intestinal motilityty: motor responses to feeding in term and preterm infants. J Pediatr. 1990 Nov; 117(5): 777–82. 27. Coombs RC, Morgan ME, Durbin GM, Booth IW, McNeish AS. Gut blood flow velocities in the newborn: effects of patent ductus arteriosus and parenteral indomethacin. Arch Dis Child. 1990 Oct; 65(10 Spec No):1067–71.