Comparison of caloric intake and weight outcomes of an ad lib feeding regimen for preterm infants in two nurseries

Cue-based versus scheduled feeding for preterm infants transitioning from tube to oral feeding: the Cubs mixed-methods feasibility study

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of evidence of the effect of cue-based feeding compared with scheduled feeding on important outcomes for preterm infants.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were as follows: (1) to describe the characteristics, components, theoretical basis and outcomes of approaches to feeding preterm infants transitioning from tube to oral feeding; (2) to identify operational policies, barriers and facilitators, and staff and parents' educational needs in neonatal units implementing cue-based feeding; (3) to co-produce an intervention for feeding preterm infants in response to feeding cues; (4) to appraise the willingness of parents and staff to implement and sustain the intervention; (5) to assess associated costs of implementing cue-based feeding; (6) to determine the feasibility and acceptability of a future trial; (7) to scope existing data-recording systems and potential outcome measures; and (8) to determine stakeholders' views of whether or not a randomised controlled trial of this approach is feasible.

DESIGN

This was a mixed-methods intervention development and feasibility study comprising (1) a systematic review, case studies, qualitative research and stakeholder consensus; (2) the co-production of the intervention; (3) a mixed-methods feasibility study; and (4) an assessment of stakeholder preferences for a future evaluation.

SETTING

Three neonatal units in the UK (two level 3 units and one level 2 unit).

PARTICIPANTS

Developmentally normal, clinically stable preterm infants receiving enteral feeds (n = 50), parents (n = 15 pre intervention development; n = 14 in the feasibility study) and health-care practitioners (n = 54 pre intervention development; n = 16 in the feasibility study).

INTERVENTION

An evidence-informed multicomponent intervention comprising training, a feeding protocol, feeding assessment tools, supplementary training materials [including posters, a film and a narrated PowerPoint (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) presentation] and the 'Our Feeding Journey' document.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome measures were recruitment and screening rates, infant weight gain, duration of the intervention, feeding outcomes, implementation outcomes (contextual facilitators and barriers, acceptability, adoption, appropriateness and fidelity) and stakeholder preferences for a future evaluation.

RESULTS

The systematic review of 25 studies concluded that evidence in favour of cue-based feeding should be treated cautiously. The case studies and qualitative research highlighted contextual barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of cue-based feeding. The telephone survey found that many neonatal units are considering implementing cue-based feeding. We recruited 37% of eligible infants, and there was good retention in the study until discharge but a high loss to follow-up at 2 weeks post discharge. The mean number of days from intervention to transition to full oral feeding was 10.8, and the mean daily change in weight gain was 25 g. The intervention was acceptable to parents and staff, although there was dissatisfaction with the study documentation. Intervention training did not reach all staff. A cluster-randomised design with a composite outcome was suggested by stakeholders for a future study.

LIMITATIONS

The intervention was available only in English. Intervention training did not reach all staff. There was low recruitment to qualitative interviews and observations. Only a small number of medical staff engaged in either the training or the interviews.

CONCLUSIONS

It is feasible to implement a cue-based feeding intervention with improved training and documentation. Further work is needed to assess the feasibility of a future trial, noting evidence of existing lack of equipoise.

FUTURE WORK

The next steps are to digitalise the intervention and conduct a survey of all neonatal units in the UK.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018097317 and ISRCTN13414304.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 74. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Impact of Feeding Interval on Time to Achieve Full Oral Feeding in Preterm Infants: A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Preterm infants are scheduled to receive total feeding amount in either 3-hour or 2-hour intervals. A gavage feeding may be required if the scheduled amount is not completed orally. Feedings every 2 hours are one-third smaller than feedings every 3 hours. Thus, if the volume of each feed is reduced by decreasing the feeding interval from 3 to 2 hours, the likelihood that the infant completes each volume orally increases, and the probability of requiring gavage feeding decreases. The impact of feeding with 2-hour or 3-hour intervals on time to achieve full oral feeding in preterm infants was investigated.

METHODS

Infants on full enteral gavage feedings were randomized into 2 groups to receive feedings in either 3-hour or 2-hour intervals. The time to achieve full oral feeding and the duration of feeding transition from gavage to oral feedings were investigated. Data were presented as median (interquartile range).

RESULTS

The study included 100 infants (gestational age: 29 [28-31] weeks, birth weight: 1205 [1040-1380] g) with 50 in each group. The postmenstrual age to achieve full oral feeding was 35 (35-37) weeks in the 3-hour-interval group and 35 (34-36) weeks in the 2-hour-interval group; P = 0.131. The duration of feeding transition was similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Feeding every 2 hours caused no improvement in the time to achieve full oral feeding. The 3-hour-interval feeding is appropriate for the neonatal units, where less handling of preterms and decreased workload of nurses are valuable.

Responsive versus scheduled feeding for preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Feeding preterm infants in response to their hunger and satiation cues (responsive, cue-based, or infant-led feeding) rather than at scheduled intervals might enhance infants' and parents' experience and satisfaction, 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 a responsive basis versus feeding prescribed volumes at scheduled intervals on growth rates, levels of parent satisfaction, and time to hospital discharge.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 17 February 2016), Embase (1980 to 17 February 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 17 February 2016). We also searched clinical trials' databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that compared a policy of feeding preterm infants on a responsive basis versus feeding at scheduled intervals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and undertook data extraction independently. We analysed the treatment effects in the individual trials and reported the risk ratio and risk difference for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a fixed-effect model in meta-analyses and explored the potential causes of heterogeneity in sensitivity analyses. We assessed the quality of evidence at the outcome level using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We found nine eligible RCTs including 593 infants in total. These trials compared responsive with scheduled interval regimens in preterm infants in the transition phase from intragastric tube to oral feeding. The trials were generally small and contained various methodological weaknesses including lack of blinding and incomplete assessment of all randomised participants. Meta-analyses, although limited by data quality and availability, suggest that responsive feeding results in slightly slower rates of weight gain (MD -1.36, 95% CI -2.44 to -0.29 g/kg/day), and provide some evidence that responsive feeding reduces the time taken for infants to transition from enteral tube to oral feeding (MD -5.53, 95% CI -6.80 to -4.25 days). GRADE assessments indicated low quality of evidence. The importance of this finding is uncertain as the trials did not find a strong or consistent effect on the duration of hospitalisation. None of the included trials reported any parent, caregiver, or staff views.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the data do not provide strong or consistent evidence that responsive feeding affects important outcomes for preterm infants or their families. Some (low quality) evidence exists that preterm infants fed in response to feeding and satiation cues achieve full oral feeding earlier than infants fed prescribed volumes at scheduled intervals. This finding should be interpreted cautiously because of methodological weaknesses in the included trials. A large RCT would be needed to confirm this finding and to determine if responsive feeding of preterm infants affects other important outcomes.

Responsive versus scheduled feeding for preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Feeding preterm infants in response to their hunger and satiation cues (responsive, cue-based, or infant-led feeding) rather than at scheduled intervals might enhance infants' and parents' experience and satisfaction, 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 feeding preterm infants on a responsive basis versus feeding prescribed volumes at scheduled intervals on growth, duration of hospital stay, and parental satisfaction.

SEARCH METHODS

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 9, 2015), MEDLINE (1966 to September 2015), EMBASE (1980 to September 2015), and CINAHL (1982 to September 2015), conference proceedings, previous reviews, and trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that compared a policy of feeding preterm infants on a responsive basis versus feeding at scheduled intervals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and undertook data extraction independently. We analysed the treatment effects in the individual trials and reported the risk ratio and risk difference for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a fixed-effect model in meta-analyses and explored the potential causes of heterogeneity in sensitivity analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We found nine eligible RCTs including 593 infants in total. These trials compared responsive with scheduled interval regimens in preterm infants in the transition phase from intragastric tube to oral feeding. The trials were generally small and contained various methodological weaknesses including lack of blinding and incomplete assessment of all randomised participants. Meta-analyses, although limited by data quality and availability, suggest that responsive feeding results in slightly slower rates of weight gain (MD -1.4, 95% CI -2.4 to -0.3 g/kg/day), and provide some evidence that responsive feeding reduces the time taken for infants to transition from enteral tube to oral feeding (MD -5.5, 95% CI -6.8 to -4.2 days). The importance of this finding is uncertain as the trials did not find a strong or consistent effect on the duration of hospitalisation. None of the included trials reported any parent, caregiver, or staff views.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the data do not provide strong or consistent evidence that responsive feeding affects important outcomes for preterm infants or their families. Some evidence exists that preterm infants fed in response to feeding and satiation cues achieve full oral feeding earlier than infants fed prescribed volumes at scheduled intervals. However, this finding should be interpreted cautiously because of methodological weaknesses in the included trials. A large RCT would be needed to confirm this finding and to determine if responsive feeding of preterm infants affects other important outcomes.

Feeding Difficulties in Preterm Infants

Preterm infants often display difficulty establishing oral feeding in the weeks following birth. This article aims to provide an overview of the literature investigating the development of feeding skills in preterm infants, as well as of interventions aimed at assisting preterm infants to develop their feeding skills. Available research suggests that preterm infants born at a lower gestational age and/or with a greater degree of morbidity are most at risk of early feeding difficulties. Respiratory disease was identified as a particular risk factor. Mechanisms for feeding difficulty identified in the literature include immature or dysfunctional sucking skills and poor suck–swallow–breath coordination. Available evidence provides some support for therapy interventions aimed at improving feeding skills, as well as the use of restricted milk flow to assist with maintaining appropriate ventilation during feeds. Further research is needed to confirm these findings, as well as to answer remaining clinical questions.

Making the literature palatable at the bedside: Reference poster promotes oral feeding best practice

Neonatal nurses often draw upon prior experiences and intuition to feed neonates. Such experience and skill vary from nurse to nurse and may not be based on recent research, nor tailored to each neonate's feeding skill. An evidence-based neonatal oral feeding guideline was produced to improve oral feeding practices among nurses and parents. The implementation was initially less than ideal, resulting in poor compliance. A bedside reference poster was designed to serve as a visual succinct reminder of the oral feeding guideline.

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.

Outcomes From an Oral Feeding Protocol Implemented in the NICU

The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of 2 different oral feeding protocols. The old protocol advanced oral feedings based on established feeding times, whereas the new evidenced-based protocol advanced oral feedings using infant cues. This retrospective study, conducted by reviewing the charts of premature infants born less than or at 34 weeks' gestation, documented the differences between the 2 oral feeding protocols. The medical records were reviewed for 200 premature infants admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit at Children's Hospital of Illinois, Peoria, Illinois. The main outcome variables this study compared were when infants started oral feedings, time to achieve 50% and 100% feedings orally, weight at time of oral feeding, day of life, and postmenstrual age. The percentage of feedings when oral stimulation was ordered, frequency of feeding therapy consultations, length of stay, weight at the time of discharge, and postmenstrual age at the time of discharge were also compared. Infants participating in the new feeding protocol began oral feedings at an earlier postmenstrual age as compared to infants using the old feeding protocol. Participants enrolled in this new protocol did not experience adverse events. They were also able to progress to full oral feedings while maintaining adequate weight, had less need for feeding therapy consultations, and length of stay was not prolonged.

Predictors of nutritive sucking in preterm infants

OBJECTIVE

The purposes of this analysis were to determine how select characteristics of nutritive sucking (number of sucks, sucks/burst, and sucks/minute) change over time and to examine the effect of select factors (morbidity, maturity, prefeeding behavior state, and feeding experience) on those changes.

STUDY DESIGN

A longitudinal, non-experimental study was conducted in a Level 3 neonatal intensive care unit using a convenience sample of 88 preterm infants. Statistical analyses were performed using a repeated-measures mixed-model in SAS.

RESULTS

Sucking activity (number of sucks, sucks/burst, and sucks/minute) was predicted by morbidity, maturity, feeding experience and prefeeding behavior state. Experience at oral feeding had the greatest effect on changes in the number of sucks, suck/burst and sucks/minute.

CONCLUSION

Experience at feeding may result in more rapid maturation of sucking characteristics.

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

BACKGROUND

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 1, 2006), MEDLINE (1966 - March 2006), EMBASE (1980 - March 2006), CINAHL (1982 - March 2006), 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

The standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by two review authors. The primary outcomes of interest were growth rates and age at hospital discharge.

MAIN RESULTS

We found seven randomised controlled trials that compared ad libitum or demand/semi-demand regimes 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 is not likely to have allowed detection of measurable effects on growth. The single trial that assessed growth for longer than one week found that the rate of weight gain was lower in the ad libitum fed infants [mean difference -3.30 (95% confidence interval -6.2 to -0.4) grams per kilogram per day]. Two trials reported that feeding preterm infants using an ad libitum or demand/semi-demand feeding regime allowed earlier discharge from hospital, but the other trials did not confirm this finding. We were not able to undertake meta-analyses because of differences in study design and in the way the findings were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are insufficient data at present to guide clinical practice. A large randomised controlled trial is needed to determine if ad libitum of demand/semi-demand feeding of preterm infants affects clinically important outcomes. This trial should focus on infants in the transition phase from intragastric tube to oral feeding and should be of sufficient duration to assess effects on growth and time to oral feeding and hospital discharge.

Enteral feeding of low birth weight infants

There is sufficient evidence at present to support early enteral feeding of low birth weight (LBW) neonates, including those who are sick or very preterm (< 30 weeks). Trophic feeding with human milk initiated within 48 hours of birth at 10-15 ml/kg/day improves later tolerance to graded increment of enteral feeding volumes without increased risk of necrotizing enterocolitis. Trophic feeding supports increments of feeding volumes by 30 ml/kg/day by intermittent gavage feeding. Non-nutritive sucking and spoon-feeding aid earlier transition to exclusive breast-feeding. Human milk promotes adequate growth of most preterm neonates, though many need multivitamin and mineral supplementation. The role of human milk fortifiers to promote growth appears controversial.