Behavioral responses of preterm infants to a standard-care and semi-demand feeding protocol

Systemizing and Transforming Preterm Oral Feeding Through Innovative Algorithms

Background: Establishing safe and efficient oral feeds for preterm infants is one of the last milestones to be achieved prior to discharge home. However, this process commonly elicits stress and anxiety in both care providers, such as nurses and the entire healthcare team in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU), as well as parents. These feelings of uncertainty are exacerbated by the non-linear progression of oral feeding development and the absence of a systematized approach to initiate and advance feedings. Methods: In this 48-bed tertiary perinatal centre, staff surveys and a needs assessment showed dissatisfaction and increasing stress and anxiety due to the inconsistencies in initiating and advancing oral feeds. This paper describes the formation of a multidisciplinary feeding committee which reviewed various oral feeding training materials and the ultimate creation of two innovative oral feeding algorithms and their corresponding education materials. Results: The Sunnybrook Feeding Committee has developed two evidence-based algorithms, one for initiating oral feeds and another for monitoring progress with objective decision-making points during common oral feeding challenges. To complement and support these algorithms, educational materials and a comprehensive documentation process were also created. These resources included detailed instructions, visual aids, and step-by-step guides to help staff understand and apply the algorithms effectively. Additionally, the educational materials aimed to standardize training and ensure consistency across the NICU, further promoting a systematic approach to preterm oral feeding. Implementation of these algorithms also aimed to provide evidence-based, expert-guided guidelines for assessing readiness, initiating feeds, monitoring progress, and making necessary adjustments. Conclusions: This structured approach lays the foundation for a unit-wide language and systematic process for oral feeding. The next steps in this quality improvement project involve educating and piloting the implementation of the developed oral feeding algorithms, gathering staff feedback, and refining the tools accordingly. The goal is to enhance overall care quality, reduce stress for both care providers and parents, and ensure the best possible start for vulnerable preterm infants, ultimately supporting a smooth and successful transition to home.

Oral stimulation for promoting oral feeding in preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Preterm infants (< 37 weeks' post-menstrual age (PMA)) are often delayed in attaining oral feeding. Normal oral feeding is suggested as an important outcome for the timing of discharge from the hospital and can be an early indicator of neuromotor integrity and developmental outcomes. A range of oral stimulation interventions may help infants to develop sucking and oromotor co-ordination, promoting earlier oral feeding and earlier hospital discharge. This is an update of our 2016 review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of oral stimulation interventions for attainment of oral feeding in preterm infants born before 37 weeks' PMA.

SEARCH METHODS

Searches were run in March 2022 of the following databases: CENTRAL via CRS Web; MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials. Searches were limited by date 2016 (the date of the search for the original review) forward. Note: Due to circumstances beyond our control (COVID and staffing shortages at the editorial base of Cochrane Neonatal), publication of this review, planned for mid 2021, was delayed. Thus, although searches were conducted in 2022 and results screened, potentially relevant studies found after September 2020 have been placed in the section, Awaiting Classification, and not incorporated into our analysis.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing a defined oral stimulation intervention with no intervention, standard care, sham treatment or non-oral intervention (e.g. body stroking protocols or gavage adjustment protocols) in preterm infants and reporting at least one of the specified outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Following the updated search, two review authors screened the titles and abstracts of studies and full-text copies when needed to identify trials for inclusion in the review. The primary outcomes of interest were time (days) to exclusive oral feeding, time (days) spent in NICU, total hospital stay (days), and duration (days) of parenteral nutrition. All review and support authors contributed to independent extraction of data and analysed assigned studies for risk of bias across the five domains of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool. The GRADE system was used to rate the certainty of the evidence. Studies were divided into two groups for comparison: intervention versus standard care and intervention versus other non-oral or sham intervention. We performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 28 RCTs (1831 participants). Most trials had methodological weaknesses, particularly in relation to allocation concealment and masking of study personnel. Oral stimulation compared with standard care Following meta-analysis, it is uncertain whether oral stimulation reduces the time to transition to oral feeding compared with standard care (mean difference (MD) -4.07 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.81 to -3.32 days, 6 studies, 292 infants; I2 =85%, very low-certainty evidence due to serious risk of bias and inconsistency). Time (days) spent in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) was not reported. It is uncertain whether oral stimulation reduces the duration of hospitalisation (MD -4.33, 95% CI -5.97 to -2.68 days, 5 studies, 249 infants; i2 =68%, very low-certainty evidence due to serious risk of bias and inconsistency). Duration (days) of parenteral nutrition was not reported. Oral stimulation compared with non-oral intervention Following meta-analysis, it is uncertain whether oral stimulation reduces the time to transition to exclusive oral feeding compared with a non-oral intervention (MD -7.17, 95% CI -8.04 to -6.29 days, 10 studies, 574 infants; I2 =80%, very low-certainty evidence due to serious risk of bias, inconsistency and precision). Time (days) spent in the NICU was not reported. Oral stimulation may reduce the duration of hospitalisation (MD -6.15, 95% CI -8.63 to -3.66 days, 10 studies, 591 infants; I2 =0%, low-certainty evidence due to serious risk of bias). Oral stimulation may have little or no effect on the duration (days) of parenteral nutrition exposure (MD -2.85, 95% CI -6.13 to 0.42, 3 studies, 268 infants; very low-certainty evidence due to serious risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There remains uncertainty about the effects of oral stimulation (versus either standard care or a non-oral intervention) on transition times to oral feeding, duration of intensive care stay, hospital stay, or exposure to parenteral nutrition for preterm infants. Although we identified 28 eligible trials in this review, only 18 provided data for meta-analyses. Methodological weaknesses, particularly in relation to allocation concealment and masking of study personnel and caregivers, inconsistency between trials in effect size estimates (heterogeneity), and imprecision of pooled estimates were the main reasons for assessing the evidence as low or very low certainty. More well-designed trials of oral stimulation interventions for preterm infants are warranted. Such trials should attempt to mask caregivers to treatment when possible, paying particular attention to blinding of outcome assessors. There are currently 32 ongoing trials. Outcome measures that reflect improvements in oral motor skill development as well as longer term outcome measures beyond six months of age need to be defined and used by researchers to capture the full impact of these interventions.

Using non-nutritive sucking to support feeding development for premature infants: A commentary on approaches and current practice

Non-nutritive sucking is often used with premature infants by either using a pacifier or an expressed breast nipple to support the introduction and development of early oral feeding. The pattern of non-nutritive sucking is distinct in that it involves two sucks per second in contrast to nutritive sucking which is one suck per second. Although some literature has identified that non-nutritive sucking has some benefit for the premature infant's feeding development, it is not entirely clear why such an approach is helpful as neurologically, activation of non-nutritive and nutritive skills are different. A summary is presented of the main approaches that use non-nutritive sucking with reference to the literature. This paper also considers other factors and beneficial approaches to managing the introduction of infant feeding. These are: the infant's toleration of enteral feeds pre oral trials, overall development and gestational age when introducing oral experiences, developing swallowing skills before sucking, physiological stability, health status, as well as the development and interpretation of infant oral readiness signs and early communication.

Oral stimulation for promoting oral feeding in preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Preterm infants (< 37 weeks' postmenstrual age) are often delayed in attaining oral feeding. Normal oral feeding is suggested as an important outcome for the timing of discharge from the hospital and can be an early indicator of neuromotor integrity and developmental outcomes. A range of oral stimulation interventions may help infants to develop sucking and oromotor co-ordination, promoting earlier oral feeding and earlier hospital discharge.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of oral stimulation interventions for attainment of oral feeding in preterm infants born before 37 weeks' postmenstrual age (PMA).To conduct subgroup analyses for the following prespecified subgroups.• Extremely preterm infants born at < 28 weeks' PMA.• Very preterm infants born from 28 to < 32 weeks' PMA.• Infants breast-fed exclusively.• Infants bottle-fed exclusively.• Infants who were both breast-fed and bottle-fed.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 25 February 2016), Embase (1980 to 25 February 2016) and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to 25 February 2016). We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and the reference lists of retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing a defined oral stimulation intervention with no intervention, standard care, sham treatment or non-oral intervention in preterm infants and reporting at least one of the specified outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author searched the databases and identified studies for screening. Two review authors screened the abstracts of these studies and full-text copies when needed to identify trials for inclusion in the review. All review authors independently extracted the data and analysed each study for risk of bias across the five domains of bias. All review authors discussed and analysed the data and used the GRADE system to rate the quality of the evidence. Review authors divided studies into two groups for comparison: intervention versus standard care and intervention versus other non-oral or sham intervention. We performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included 19 randomised trials with a total of 823 participants. Almost all included trials had several methodological weaknesses. Meta-analysis showed that oral stimulation reduced the time to transition to oral feeding compared with standard care (mean difference (MD) -4.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.56 to -4.06 days) and compared with another non-oral intervention (MD -9.01, 95% CI -10.30 to -7.71 days), as well as the duration of initial hospitalisation compared with standard care (MD -5.26, 95% CI -7.34 to -3.19 days) and compared with another non-oral intervention (MD -9.01, 95% CI -10.30 to -7.71 days).Investigators reported shorter duration of parenteral nutrition for infants compared with standard care (MD -5.30, 95% CI -9.73 to -0.87 days) and compared with another non-oral intervention (MD -8.70, 95% CI -15.46 to -1.94 days). They could identify no effect on breast-feeding outcomes nor on weight gain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although the included studies suggest that oral stimulation shortens hospital stay, days to exclusive oral feeding and duration of parenteral nutrition, one must interpret results of these studies with caution, as risk of bias and poor methodological quality are high overall. Well-designed trials of oral stimulation interventions for preterm infants are warranted. Such trials should use reliable methods of randomisation while concealing treatment allocation, blinding caregivers to treatment when possible and paying particular attention to blinding of outcome assessors.

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.

Instruments for assessing readiness to commence suck feeds in preterm infants: effects on time to establish full oral feeding and duration of hospitalisation

BACKGROUND

One of the most challenging milestones for preterm infants is the acquisition of safe and efficient feeding skills. The majority of healthy full term infants are born with skills to coordinate their suck, swallow and respiration. However, this is not the case for preterm infants who develop these skills gradually as they transition from tube feeding to suck feeds. For preterm infants the ability to engage in oral feeding behaviour is dependent on many factors. The complexity of factors influencing feeding readiness has led some researchers to investigate the use of an individualised assessment of an infant's abilities. A limited number of instruments that aim to indicate an individual infant's readiness to commence either breast or bottle feeding have been developed.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of using a feeding readiness instrument when compared to no instrument or another instrument on the outcomes of time to establish full oral feeding and duration of hospitalisations.

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 22 February 2016), EMBASE (1980 to 22 February 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 22 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 and quasi-randomised trials comparing a formal instrument to assess a preterm infant's readiness to commence suck feeds with either no instrument (usual practice) or another feeding readiness instrument.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal were used. Two authors independently screened potential studies for inclusion. No studies were found that met our inclusion criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies met the inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no evidence to inform clinical practice, with no studies meeting the inclusion criteria for this review. Research is needed in this area to establish an evidence base for the clinical utility of implementing the use of an instrument to assess feeding readiness in the preterm infant population.

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 behaviour and performance of preterm neonates on Paladai feeding

AIM

To evaluate the feeding behaviour and performance of preterm neonates receiving feeds by paladai (a small beaked receptacle).

METHODS

We enrolled stable neonates - 10 each in 28-30 weeks [group I] and 31-32 weeks gestation [group II], and offered them paladai feeds. We recorded the feeding sessions on alternate days until they were on full enteral feeds. The outcome variables were (1) feeding behaviour, as assessed by changes in states of wakefulness, oromotor functions and coordination between breathing and swallowing; (2) feeding performance, as assessed by proficiency and efficiency.

RESULTS

A total of 47 and 27 sessions were studied in groups I and II, respectively. The median postconceptional age (PCA) at start of paladai feeding was 30 (range, 29-32) and 32 (31-32) weeks in the two groups. The infants accepted paladai feedings in all behavioural states. Incoordination between feeding and breathing was observed in about 25% of the sessions in both the groups. We observed a rapid improvement in feeding performance with experience - the median proficiency improved from 5.5 to 10.1 mL/min and 6.2-11.5 mL/min in groups I and II, respectively. The proficiency of group I infants at a median PCA of 30.9 weeks was higher than that of group II infants at median PCA 31.7 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Stable preterm neonates can be fed with paladai from 30 weeks PCA. The oropharyngeal ability is possibly influenced more by the postnatal experience than by maturity at birth.

Instruments for assessing readiness to commence suck feeds in preterm infants: effects on time to establish full oral feeding and duration of hospitalisation

BACKGROUND

One of the most challenging milestones for preterm infants is the acquisition of safe and efficient feeding skills. The majority of healthy full term infants are born with skills to coordinate their suck, swallow and respiration. However, this is not the case for preterm infants who develop these skills gradually as they transition from tube feeding to suck feeds. For preterm infants the ability to engage in oral feeding behaviour is dependent on many factors. The complexity of factors influencing feeding readiness has led some researchers to investigate the use of an individualised assessment of an infant's abilities. A limited number of instruments that aim to indicate an individual infant's readiness to commence either breast or bottle feeding have been developed.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of using a feeding readiness instrument when compared to no instrument or another instrument on the outcomes of time to establish full oral feeding and duration of hospitalisation.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group, including a search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2), MEDLINE via EBSCO (1966 to July 2010), EMBASE (1980 to July 2010), CINAHL via EBSCO (1982 to July 2010), Web of Science via EBSCO (1980 to July 2010) and Health Source (1980 to July 2010). Other sources such as cited references from retrieved articles and databases of clinical trials were also searched. We did not apply any language restriction. We updated this search in March 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing a formal instrument to assess a preterm infant's readiness to commence suck feeds with either no instrument (usual practice) or another feeding readiness instrument.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group were used. Two authors independently screened potential studies for inclusion. No studies were found that met our inclusion criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies met the inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no evidence to inform clinical practice, with no studies meeting the inclusion criteria for this review. Research is needed in this area to establish an evidence base for the clinical utility of implementing the use of an instrument to assess feeding readiness in the preterm infant population.

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.

Sucking and swallowing in infants and diagnostic tools

Preterm infants often have difficulties in learning how to suckle from the breast or how to drink from a bottle. As yet, it is unclear whether this is part of their prematurity or whether it is caused by neurological problems. Is it possible to decide on the basis of how an infant learns to suckle or drink whether it needs help and if so, what kind of help? In addition, can any predictions be made regarding the relationship between these difficulties and later neurodevelopmental outcome? We searched the literature for recent insights into the development of sucking and the factors that play a role in acquiring this skill. Our aim was to find a diagnostic tool that focuses on the readiness for feeding or that provides guidelines for interventions. At the same time, we searched for studies on the relationship between early sucking behavior and developmental outcome. It appeared that there is a great need for a reliable, user-friendly and noninvasive diagnostic tool to study sucking in preterm and full-term infants.

The reliability of the Neonatal Oral-Motor Assessment Scale

OBJECTIVES

Sucking problems in preterm infants can be specified by means of visual observation. The Neonatal Oral-Motor Assessment Scale (NOMAS) is the visual observation method most commonly used to assess the non-nutritive sucking (NNS) and nutritive sucking (NS) skills of infants up to approximately 8 weeks postterm. During the first 2 min of a regular feeding the infant's sucking skill is assessed, either immediately or on video. Although NOMAS has been used since 1993, little is known about the method's reliability. The aim of our study was to determine the test-retest and inter-rater reliability of NOMAS.

METHODS

The 75 infants included in this study were born at 26-36 weeks postmenstrual age (PMA). Four observers participated in the study. They were trained and certified to administer NOMAS in the Netherlands by M.M. Palmer between 2000 and 2002.

RESULTS

We found the test-retest agreement of NOMAS to be 'fair' to 'almost perfect' (Cohen's kappa [kappa] between 0.33 and 0.94), whereas the inter-rater agreement with respect to the diagnosis was 'moderate' to 'substantial' (Cohen's kappa, between 0.40 and 0.65). As a diagnostic tool, however, the current version of NOMAS cannot be used for both full-term and preterm infants. For a measuring instrument such as NOMAS, one should aim at reliability coefficients for inter-rater and test-retest agreement of at least 0.8. A Cohen's kappa of 0.6 or less we find unacceptable. Nonetheless, by observing sucking and swallowing according to a protocol much useful information can be gathered about the development of an infant's sucking skills. For instance, whether the infant is able to co-ordinate sucking and swallowing, whether the infant can maintain sucking, swallowing and breathing during the continuous phase and whether the infant is able to suck rhythmically with equally long bursts. In addition, NOMAS offers useful aids for intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

NOMAS should be re-adjusted in order to improve inter-rater agreement, and at the same time current insights into the development of sucking and swallowing should be incorporated in the method.

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.

Relationship of the first suck burst to feeding outcomes in preterm infants

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the relationship between the number of sucks in the first nutritive suck burst and feeding outcomes in preterm infants. The relationships of morbidity, maturity, and feeding experience to the number of sucks in the first suck burst were also examined.

METHODS

A non-experimental study of 95 preterm infants was used. Feeding outcomes included proficiency (percent consumed in first 5 min of feeding), efficiency (volume consumed over total feeding time), consumed (percent consumed over total feeding), and feeding success (proficiency >or=0.3, efficiency >or=1.5 mL/min, and consumed >or=0.8). Data were analyzed using correlation and regression analysis.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

There were statistically significant positive relationships between number of sucks in the first burst and all feeding outcomes-proficiency, efficiency, consumed, and success (r=0.303, 0.365, 0.259, and tau=0.229, P<.01, respectively). The number of sucks in the first burst was also positively correlated to behavior state and feeding experience (tau=0.104 and r=0.220, P<.01, respectively). Feeding experience was the best predictor of feeding outcomes; the number of sucks in the first suck burst also contributed significantly to all feeding outcomes. The findings suggest that as infants gain experience at feeding, the first suck burst could be a useful indicator for how successful a particular feeding might be.

Heart rate variability responses of a preterm infant to kangaroo care

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effect of kangaroo care on heart rate variability in a healthy preterm infant.

DESIGN

Case study.

SETTING

Private room on a postpartum unit.

PARTICIPANT

A mother-preterm infant dyad.

INTERVENTION

Kangaroo (skin-to-skin) care.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Heart rate variability, a noninvasive measurement of the sympathetic and parasympathetic components of the autonomic nervous system's influence on heart rate.

RESULTS

Heart rate variability, especially the parasympathetic component, was high when the infant was fussy in the open crib, indicating increased autonomic nervous system activity. With kangaroo care, the infant fell asleep, and both sympathetic and parasympathetic components of heart rate variability decreased.

CONCLUSIONS

The wide fluctuations in the parasympathetic component of heart rate variability suggest immaturity of the sympathovagal response. Overall, kangaroo care produced changes in heart rate variability that illustrate decreasing stress.

Prediction of Feeding Performance in Preterm Infants

A nonexperimental study with a sample of 95 preterm infants was used to develop a model of feeding performance outcomes (proficiency, percent of prescribed volume consumed, and efficiency) using feeding readiness indicators (morbidity, maturity, behavior state at feeding start, and feeding experience). All readiness indicators were related to each other. In particular, there was a strong relationship between maturity and feeding experience. Morbidity only had an effect on efficiency; the most ill infants were less efficient feeders. Behavior state affects all feeding outcomes in a linear fashion; more awake and alert infants had better feeding performance outcomes. The effect of experience and maturity on the outcomes is more complex because of the relationship between the two. Experience has a greater effect as the infant matures, and as the infant matures, the amount of experience increases. Successful feeding requires maturity as well as experience.

The early feeding skills assessment for preterm infants

Preterm infants develop the skills necessary to begin oral feeding as their health stabilizes and as they reach a postconceptional age that supports coordination of breathing and swallowing with oral-motor functioning. The time from initiation of oral feeding to full oral feedings (with adequate intake for growth and maintenance of physiologic stability) can vary from days to months for the preterm infant. The approach to feeding the infant during this transition period must be developmentally supportive and tailored to meet the needs of the individual. To accomplish this, caregivers--notably nurses and parents--need to communicate about the specific skills that the infant has gained, about skills that are emerging, and about skills that the infant has not yet developed. The Early Feeding Skills (EFS) Assessment is a checklist for assessing infant readiness for and tolerance of feeding and for profiling the infant's developmental stage regarding specific feeding skills: the abilities to remain engaged in feeding, organize oral-motor functioning, coordinate swallowing with breathing, and maintain physiologic stability. This article introduces the EFS.

State of the science: feeding readiness in the preterm infant

Finding ways to consistently prepare preterm infants and their families for more timely discharge must continue as a focus for everyone involved in the care of these infants in the neonatal intensive care unit. The gold standards for discharge from the neonatal intensive care unit are physiologic stability (especially respiratory stability), consistent weight gain, and successful oral feeding, usually from a bottle. Successful bottle-feeding is considered the most complex task of infancy. Fostering successful oral feeding in preterm infants requires consistently high levels of skilled nursing care, which must begin with accurate assessment of feeding readiness and thoughtful progression to full oral feeding. This comprehensive review of the literature provides an overview of the state of the science related to feeding readiness and progression in the preterm infant. The theoretical foundation for feeding readiness and factors that appear to affect bottle-feeding readiness, progression, and success are presented in this article.

Effects of non-nutritive sucking on nutritive sucking, breathing, and behavior during bottle feedings of preterm infants

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of prefeeding non-nutritive sucking (NNS) on breathing, nutritive sucking (NS), and behavioral characteristics of bottle feeding.

SUBJECTS

The convenience sample was composed of 10 preterm infants who were 33 to 40 weeks postconceptual age (PCA) at the time of the observation.

DESIGN

Randomized, crossover; each infant was observed twice during the first 48 hours of bottle feeding.

METHODS

Ten preterm infants received NNS before 1 bottle feeding and served as their own control at a second bottle feeding. Sucking was measured using a chin strain gauge and breathing was measured with a nasal thermistor. Behavioral characteristics included behavior state, measured using the Neonatal Individualized Developmental Care and Assessment Program (NIDCAP) behavior state scale, and feeding efficiency.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Characteristics of NS (number of suck bursts, sucks/burst, suck burst length) and breathing (number of breath bursts, breaths/burst, breath burst length), as well as behavior state during bottle feedings and feeding efficiency (percent of prescribed formula consumed, formula consumed/minute of feeding).

PRINCIPAL RESULTS

NS waves were smoother and more regular than NNS waves. Time to onset and duration of the first non-nutritive suck burst were positively correlated with time to onset for the first nutritive suck burst. Prefeeding NNS had no statistically significant effect on characteristics of breathing or on any other characteristics of NS. Behavioral state during feedings and feeding efficiency were not affected by prefeeding NNS.

CONCLUSIONS

In this sample, the use of prefeeding NNS did not affect NS, breathing during feeding, or select behavioral characteristics of feeding.

An evidence-based guideline for introducing oral feeding to healthy preterm infants

The ability of a preterm infant to make the transition from gavage to oral nipple feeding depends on the infant's neurodevelopment in relation to behavioral organization, to a rhythmic suck-swallow-breathe pattern, and to cardiorespiratory regulation. Research-based knowledge about infant neurodevelopment in these three areas has led to the creation of a semidemand feeding method to aid in this transition. The method combines the use of nonnutritive sucking to promote awake behavior for feeding, use of behavioral assessment to identify readiness for feeding, and systematic observation of and response to infant behavior cues to regulate frequency, length, and volume of oral feedings. Semidemand feeding may be individualized for healthy preterm infants. This article discusses both the relevant knowledge about neurodevelopment and the semidemand feeding method itself.