Ad libitum or demand/semi-demand feeding versus scheduled interval feeding for preterm infants

Ad libitum or demand/semi-demand feeding versus scheduled interval feeding for preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Scheduled interval feeding of prescribed enteral volumes is current standard practice for preterm infants. However, feeding preterm infants in response to their hunger and satiation cues (ad libitum or demand/semi demand) rather than at scheduled intervals might help in the establishment of independent oral feeding, increase nutrient intake and growth rates, and allow earlier hospital discharge.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of a policy of feeding preterm infants on an ad libitum or demand/semi-demand basis versus feeding prescribed volumes at scheduled intervals on growth rates and the time to hospital discharge.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. This included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2009), MEDLINE (1966 to Oct 2009), EMBASE (1980 to Oct 2009), CINAHL (1982 to Oct 2009), conference proceedings, and previous reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (including cluster randomised trials) that compared a policy of feeding preterm infants on an ad libitum or demand/semi-demand basis versus feeding at scheduled intervals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by two review authors.

MAIN RESULTS

We found eight randomised controlled trials that compared ad libitum or demand/semi-demand regimens with scheduled interval regimes in preterm infants in the transition phase from intragastric tube to oral feeding. The trials were generally small and of variable methodological quality. The duration of the intervention and the duration of data collection and follow-up in most of the trials was not likely to have allowed detection of measurable effects on growth. Three trials reported that feeding preterm infants using an ad libitum or demand/semi-demand feeding regimen allowed earlier discharge from hospital (by about two to four days) but other trials did not confirm this finding.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Limited evidence exists that feeding preterm infants with ad libitum or demand/semi-demand regimens allows earlier attainment of full oral feeding and earlier hospital discharge. This finding should be interpreted cautiously because of methodological weaknesses in the included trials. A large randomised controlled trial is needed to confirm this finding and to determine if ad libitum of demand/semi-demand feeding of preterm infants affects other clinically important outcomes.

Current management of transitional feeding issues in preterm neonates born in Queensland, Australia

BACKGROUND

Many preterm neonates display difficulty establishing suck-feeding competence in the weeks following birth. Ineffective management of transitional feeding issues may cause patient complications, and can contribute to increased length of stay.

AIMS

Given that many neonatal nurseries appear to vary in their neonatal feeding management practices, the aim of this study was to investigate and document the routine level of support and intervention currently provided for preterm neonates with transitional feeding issues across the various level II (special care) nurseries (SCNs) in Queensland, Australia.

METHODS

A questionnaire was mailed to all Queensland SCNs in 2005 (n=36). The questionnaire contained a series of closed-choice and short-answer questions designed to obtain information from each SCN regarding their current practices for managing transitional feeding issues in preterm neonates. Results were confirmed during a follow-up phone call.

RESULTS

Responses were obtained from 29 SCNs (80.6%). None of these nurseries reported having any formal, written policies regarding the management of transitional feeding issues in preterm neonates. Wide variations were reported in relation to the suck-feeding assessments and interventions used by staff within the various SCNs. Of the 29 nurseries, 4 (13.8%) reported using checklists or assessments to judge readiness for suck-feeds, and 5 (17.2%) reported using pulse oximetry to judge tolerance of suck-feeding attempts. Eighteen SCNs (62.1%) reported offering some form of active intervention to assist neonates with transitional feeding issues, with the most common intervention techniques reported being non-nutritive sucking during tube feeds, pre-feeding oral stimulation, and actively pacing suck-feeds. Twenty-two SCNs (75.4%) reported having access to a lactation consultant to assist mothers with breastfeeding issues.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences were reported in the routine management of transitional feeding issues in preterm neonates across the various SCNs in Queensland. It is suggested that evidence based guidelines need to be developed, and that, in order to do this, further research studies are required to determine current best practice, as well as to answer remaining questions.