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

Nifty Cup Versus Katori-Spoon Feeding in Preterm Infants: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Many preterm infants cannot breastfeed directly and depend on other feeding methods. Multiple studies have compared feeding methods for such infants; however, the best method remains unknown. We compared Nifty cup with Katori-spoon feeding in preterm neonates deemed fit for oral feeding. Methods: This open-label randomized controlled trial was performed in a level III neonatal unit. Preterm (<34 weeks) neonates deemed fit to initiate oral feeding were randomly allocated to the Nifty cup and Katori-spoon groups. Patients were followed up until 40 (±2) weeks of postmenstrual age or until death, whichever occurred earlier. The primary outcome was time to achieve full oral feeding. The secondary outcomes included the time spent per feeding session, time to full direct breastfeeding, anthropometry at discharge, duration of hospitalization, and mortality. The opinions of mothers and nurses were recorded using a structured questionnaire. Results: A total of 106 participants (53 in each group) were randomized and analyzed for the primary outcome. The median (1st, 3rd quartile) time to achieve complete oral feeds was 5 (2, 11) versus 6 (4, 11) days in the Nifty cup versus Katori-spoon groups, respectively (p = 0.2). Infants in the Nifty cup group reached full breastfeeds earlier (mean difference = 12.6 days; 95% confidence interval: 4.3 to 20.8, p = 0.003) and had less vomiting (9.4% versus 26.4%, p = 0.023). Mothers and nurses felt that breast milk expression and feeding with a Nifty cup was easier. Conclusions: Compared to the Katori-spoon, feeding with a Nifty cup did not shorten the time to full oral feeds. However, it helps in attaining full breastfeeds earlier than the Katori-spoon. Trial Registration: Clinical Trials Registry-India (CTRI/2021/06/034252).

Dilemmas in initiation of very preterm infant enteral feeds-when, what, how?

With limited clinical evidence available to guide common nutritional decisions, significant variation exists in approaches to enteral feeding for very preterm infants, specifically when feedings are initiated, what is fed, and the method used for feedings. Preclinical studies have highlighted the benefits associated with avoiding nil per os and providing early-stage mother's own milk or colostrum. However, these recommended approaches are often mutually exclusive due to the delays in lactation associated with very preterm delivery, resulting in uncertainty regarding which approach should be prioritized. Few studies have evaluated feeding frequency in preterm infants, with limited generalizability to extremely preterm infants. Therefore, even evidence-based approaches to very preterm infant feed initiation can differ. Future research is needed to identify optimal strategies for enteral nutrition in very preterm infants, but, until then, evidence-informed approaches may vary depending on each neonatal intensive care unit's assessment of risk and benefit.

Three-hourly versus two-hourly feeding interval in stable preterm infants: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggests that three-hourly feeding is safe and might help achieve full feeds earlier in preterm infants. We systematically compared the benefits and harms of three-hourly and two-hourly feeding schedules in preterm infants. We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus) and trial registries until November 16, 2021, for RCTs comparing the two feeding schedules. We did a random-effects meta-analysis using RevMan 5.4 software. The primary outcome was the incidence of stage II or III necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). Other outcomes were the incidence of any stage NEC, mortality, time to full enteral feeds, and hospital stay. Six trials (872 participants) are included. There was no significant difference in the incidence of stage II/III NEC (3 trials; 530 participants; RR 1.39; 95% CI: 0.53, 3.65; I² - 0%, low certainty), and any stage NEC (5 studies; 767 participants; RR 0.98; 95% CI: 0.53, 1.82; I² -0%, very low certainty) between three and two-hourly feeding groups. There was no difference in achieving full feeds (5 trials; 755 participants; MD: - 0.0 days; 95% CI: - 0.32, 0.31, low certainty) or other outcomes. On subgroup analysis, neonates with birthweight < 1000 g and in the three-hourly feeding regime achieved full enteral feeds slower than those in the two-hourly feeding group (1 trial; 84 participants; MD: 2.9 days, 95% CI: 1.16, 4.64, low certainty).

CONCLUSION

In stable preterm infants (1000-1500 g), three-hourly feeding can be followed safely. In infants < 1000 g, there is insufficient evidence to advise on an optimal feeding interval, although a 2-h interval might be preferable.Prospero Registration Number: CRD42021246568.

WHAT IS KNOWN

• Most of the units follow two-hourly feeding schedules without any evidence. • Recent trials suggest that the three hourly feeding schedules can be safely followed in stable preterm infants.

WHAT IS NEW

• Low certainty evidence suggests that three-hourly feeding is safe in stable preterm infants (1000-1500 grams). • In infants with birthweight <1000 grams, two-hourly feeding may be considered as it was associated with a shorter time to full feeds in subgroup analysis.

Effects of different feeding intervals on the feeding outcomes of infants who underwent surgical repair of ventricular septal defects

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the present study is to explore the effect of different feeding intervals on the feeding outcomes of infants who underwent ventricular septal defect (VSD) closure.

METHODS

This study is a prospective, randomized controlled trial conducted by a provincial hospital in China. According to different feeding intervals, 78 eligible participants were randomly divided into Group A (2-h interval, n = 39) and Group B (3-h interval, n = 39). The basic clinical data, total feeding time, incidence of feeding intolerance, and nurse job satisfaction scores of the two groups were collected.

RESULTS

The total feeding time in Group A was significantly longer than that in Group B (142.5 ± 15.4 vs. 132.0 ± 16.1 min/d, p = .020). The nurse job satisfaction scores in Group A were significantly lower than those in Group B (101.7 ± 9.8 vs. 108.8 ± 10.1, p = .005). There were no significant differences in the duration of mechanical ventilation (3.7 ± 1.1 vs. 3.9 ± 1.0 d, p = .272), length of ICU stay (4.5 ± 1.1 d vs. 4.7 ± 0.9 d, p = .451), or length of hospital stay (13.2 ± 1.4 vs. 13.3 ± 1.0 d, p = .642) between the two groups. Although the incidence of feeding intolerance in Group A was slightly lower than that in Group B, the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Feeding at an interval of 2 or 3 h has no significant effect on the feeding outcomes of infants, and feeding at intervals of 3 h can reduce nurses' workload and improve nursing job satisfaction.

Short versus long feeding interval for bolus feedings in very preterm infants

BACKGROUND

There is presently no certainty about the ideal feeding intervals for preterm infants. Shorter feeding intervals of, for example, two hours, have the theoretical advantage of allowing smaller volumes of milk. This may have the potential to reduce the incidence and severity of gastro-oesophageal reflux. Longer feeding intervals have the theoretical advantage of allowing more gastric emptying between two feeds. This potentially provides periods of rest (and thus less hyperaemia) for an immature digestive tract.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the safety of shorter feeding intervals (two hours or shorter) versus longer feeding intervals (three hours or more) and to compare the effects in terms of days taken to regain birth weight and to achieve full feeding.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to run comprehensive searches in CENTRAL (2020, Issue 6) and Ovid MEDLINE and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions, and CINAHL on 25 June 2020. We searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs and quasi-RCTs comparing short (e.g. one or two hours) versus long (e.g. three or four hours) feeding intervals in preterm infants of any birth weight, all or most of whom were less than 32 weeks' gestation. Infants could be of any postnatal age at trial entry, but eligible infants should not have received feeds before study entry, with the exception of minimal enteral feeding. We included studies of nasogastric or orogastric bolus feeding, breast milk or formula, in which the feeding interval is the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Our primary outcomes were days taken to achieve full enteral feeding and days to regain birth weight. Our other outcomes were duration of hospital stay, episodes of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) and growth during hospital stay (weight, length and head circumference).

MAIN RESULTS

We included four RCTs, involving 417 infants in the review. One study involving 350 infants is awaiting classification. All studies compared two-hourly versus three-hourly feeding interval. The risk of bias of the included studies was generally low, but all studies had high risk of performance bias due to lack of blinding of the intervention. Three studies were included in meta-analysis for the number of days taken to achieve full enteral feeding (351 participants). The mean days to achieve full feeds was between eight and 11 days. There was little or no difference in days taken to achieve full enteral feeding between two-hourly and three-hourly feeding, but this finding was of low certainty (mean difference (MD) ‒0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‒1.60 to 0.36). There was low-certainty evidence that the days taken to regain birth weight may be slightly longer in infants receiving two-hourly feeding than in those receiving three-hourly feeding (MD 1.15, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.20; 3 studies, 350 participants). We are uncertain whether shorter feeding intervals have any effect on any of our secondary outcomes including the duration of hospital stay (MD ‒3.36, 95% CI ‒9.18 to 2.46; 2 studies, 207 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and the risk of NEC (typical risk ratio 1.07, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.11; 4 studies, 417 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported growth during hospital stay.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The low-certainty evidence we found in this review suggests that there may be no clinically important differences between two- and three-hourly feeding intervals. There is insufficient information about potential feeding complications and in particular NEC. No studies have looked at the effect of other feeding intervals and there is no long-term data on neurodevelopment or growth.

Establishing a Foundation for Optimal Feeding Outcomes in the NICU

Many infants in the NICU experience difficulties with oral feeding, which contribute to prolonged length of stay. Oral feeding is a complex task involving sensorimotor functioning of the face, mouth, and larynx, as well as coordination of sucking, swallowing, and breathing. The care provided in the NICU starting at birth sets the stage for future oral feeding. The purpose of this article is to describe strategies that will establish a positive foundation to support optimal oral feeding. Nurses can use these strategies to protect newborns from noxious stimuli and promote positive auditory, tactile, gustatory, and olfactory experiences to optimize neurodevelopment for the complex task of feeding.

Safety and Parental Satisfaction With Early Discharge of Preterm Infants on Nasogastric Tube Feeding and Outpatient Clinic Follow-Up

Aim: To evaluate our early discharge program of preterm infants with nasogastric tube feeding (NTF) and close outpatient clinic follow-up with regard to safety, parent satisfaction and parental stress level. Methods: 119 preterm infants were discharged on NTF from our tertiary care neonatal unit (median gestational age 31.0 weeks, median birthweight 1,650 g). Parental satisfaction was evaluated by a standardized questionnaire. For safety assessment growth until term equivalent age and re-hospitalizations within 2 months after discharge were evaluated. Results: Infants were discharged home at a median gestational age of 35.4 weeks after a median hospital stay of 22 days. Follow up was attained in 95 of 104 parent-infant dyads. The majority of parents (94%) reported that they had made the right decision in taking their infant home on NTF. At the time of discharge 86% of parents felt very well-prepared to perform NTF. 70% Of parents rated their stress level at home as low (≤2 out of 5). There were no NTF associated readmissions and no growth faltering until term equivalent age. Conclusion: Early discharge of preterm infants with NTF together with outpatient clinic follow-up is very well-accepted by parents and appears to be safe.