↓ Skip to main content

Higher versus lower amino acid intake in parenteral nutrition for newborn infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
55 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Higher versus lower amino acid intake in parenteral nutrition for newborn infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005949.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

David A Osborn, Tim Schindler, Lisa J Jones, John KH Sinn, Srinivas Bolisetty

Abstract

Sick newborn and preterm infants frequently are not able to be fed enterally, necessitating parenteral fluid and nutrition. Potential benefits of higher parenteral amino acid (AA) intake for improved nitrogen balance, growth, and infant health may be outweighed by the infant's ability to utilise high intake of parenteral AA, especially in the days after birth. The primary objective is to determine whether higher versus lower intake of parenteral AA is associated with improved growth and disability-free survival in newborn infants receiving parenteral nutrition.Secondary objectives include determining whether:• higher versus lower starting or initial intake of amino acids is associated with improved growth and disability-free survival without side effects;• higher versus lower intake of amino acids at maximal intake is associated with improved growth and disability-free survival without side effects; and• increased amino acid intake should replace non-protein energy intake (glucose and lipid), should be added to non-protein energy intake, or should be provided simultaneously with non-protein energy intake.We conducted subgroup analyses to look for any differences in the effects of higher versus lower intake of amino acids according to gestational age, birth weight, age at commencement, and condition of the infant, or concomitant increases in fluid intake. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2 June 2017), MEDLINE (1966 to 2 June 2017), Embase (1980 to 2 June 2017), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to 2 June 2017). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and citations of articles. Randomised controlled trials of higher versus lower intake of AAs as parenteral nutrition in newborn infants. Comparisons of higher intake at commencement, at maximal intake, and at both commencement and maximal intake were performed. Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed trial quality, and extracted data from included studies. We performed fixed-effect analyses and expressed treatment effects as mean difference (MD), risk ratio (RR), and risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. Thirty-two studies were eligible for inclusion. Six were short-term biochemical tolerance studies, one was in infants at > 35 weeks' gestation, one in term surgical newborns, and three yielding no usable data. The 21 remaining studies reported clinical outcomes in very preterm or low birth weight infants for inclusion in meta-analysis for this review.Higher AA intake had no effect on mortality before hospital discharge (typical RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.17; participants = 1407; studies = 14; I2= 0%; quality of evidence: low). Evidence was insufficient to show an effect on neurodevelopment and suggest no reported benefit (quality of evidence: very low). Higher AA intake was associated with a reduction in postnatal growth failure (< 10th centile) at discharge (typical RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.97; participants = 203; studies = 3; I2= 22%; typical RD -0.15, 95% CI -0.27 to -0.02; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 7, 95% CI 4 to 50; quality of evidence: very low). Subgroup analyses found reduced postnatal growth failure in infants that commenced on high amino acid intake (> 2 to ≤ 3 g/kg/day); that occurred with increased amino acid and non-protein caloric intake; that commenced on intake at < 24 hours' age; and that occurred with early lipid infusion.Higher AA intake was associated with a reduction in days needed to regain birth weight (MD -1.14, 95% CI -1.73 to -0.56; participants = 950; studies = 13; I2= 77%). Data show varying effects on growth parameters and no consistent effects on anthropometric z-scores at any time point, as well as increased growth in head circumference at discharge (MD 0.09 cm/week, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.13; participants = 315; studies = 4; I2= 90%; quality of evidence: very low).Higher AA intake was not associated with effects on days to full enteral feeds, late-onset sepsis, necrotising enterocolitis, chronic lung disease, any or severe intraventricular haemorrhage, or periventricular leukomalacia. Data show a reduction in retinopathy of prematurity (typical RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.93; participants = 269; studies = 4; I2= 31%; quality of evidence: very low) but no difference in severe retinopathy of prematurity.Higher AA intake was associated with an increase in positive protein balance and nitrogen balance. Potential biochemical intolerances were reported, including risk of abnormal blood urea nitrogen (typical RR 2.77, 95% CI 2.13 to 3.61; participants = 688; studies = 7; I2= 6%; typical RD 0.26, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.32; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 4; 95% CI 3 to 5; quality of evidence: high). Higher amino acid intake in parenteral nutrition was associated with a reduction in hyperglycaemia (> 8.3 mmol/L) (typical RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.96; participants = 505; studies = 5; I2= 68%), although the incidence of hyperglycaemia treated with insulin was not different. Low-quality evidence suggests that higher AA intake in parenteral nutrition does not affect mortality. Very low-quality evidence suggests that higher AA intake reduces the incidence of postnatal growth failure. Evidence was insufficient to show an effect on neurodevelopment. Very low-quality evidence suggests that higher AA intake reduces retinopathy of prematurity but not severe retinopathy of prematurity. Higher AA intake was associated with potentially adverse biochemical effects resulting from excess amino acid load, including azotaemia. Adequately powered trials in very preterm infants are required to determine the optimal intake of AA and effects of caloric balance in parenteral nutrition on the brain and on neurodevelopment.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 55 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 131 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 18%
Student > Bachelor 21 16%
Researcher 14 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 10%
Student > Postgraduate 7 5%
Other 23 18%
Unknown 29 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 5%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Psychology 3 2%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 37 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 April 2019.
All research outputs
#458,173
of 14,989,301 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,218
of 11,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,651
of 276,203 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#42
of 214 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,989,301 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,076 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 276,203 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 214 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.