↓ Skip to main content

Slow advancement of enteral feed volumes to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants

Overview of attention for article published in this source, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
151 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
Slow advancement of enteral feed volumes to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants
Published by
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, October 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001241.pub6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Morgan, Jessie, Young, Lauren, McGuire, William

Abstract

Early enteral feeding practices are potentially modifiable risk factors for necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) in very preterm or very low birth weight (VLBW) infants. Observational studies suggest that conservative feeding regimens, including slowly advancing enteral feed volumes, reduce the risk of NEC. However, slow feed advancement may delay establishment of full enteral feeding and be associated with metabolic and infectious morbidities secondary to prolonged exposure to parenteral nutrition. To determine the effect of slow rates of enteral feed advancement on the incidence of NEC, mortality, and other morbidities in very preterm or VLBW infants. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 7), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to August 2015), EMBASE (1980 to August 2015), and CINAHL (1982 to August 2015). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, previous reviews, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that assessed the effect of slow (up to 24 mL/kg/day) versus faster rates of advancement of enteral feed volumes upon the incidence of NEC in very preterm or VLBW infants. Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and undertook data extraction. We analysed the treatment effects in the individual trials and reported the risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) for dichotomous data and mean difference for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used a fixed-effect model in meta-analyses and explored the potential causes of heterogeneity in sensitivity analyses. We identified nine randomised controlled trials in which 949 infants participated. Most participants were stable preterm infants with birth weights between 1000 and 1500 g. Fewer participants were extremely preterm, extremely low birth weight, or growth-restricted. The trials typically defined slow advancement as daily increments of 15 to 24 mL/kg and faster advancement as 30 to 40 mL/kg. Meta-analyses did not show statistically significant effects on the risk of NEC (typical RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.62; typical RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03) or all-cause mortality (typical RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.53; typical RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.08). Slow feeds advancement delayed the establishment of full enteral nutrition by one to five days and increased the risk of invasive infection (typical RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.06; typical RD 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.13; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome 14, 95% CI 8 to 100). The available trial data suggest that advancing enteral feed volumes at daily increments of 30 to 40 mL/kg (compared to 15 to 24 mL/kg) does not increase the risk of NEC or death in VLBW infants. Advancing the volume of enteral feeds at slow rates results in several days of delay in establishing full enteral feeds and increases the risk of invasive infection. The applicability of these findings to extremely preterm, extremely low birth weight, or growth-restricted infants is limited. Further randomised controlled trials in these populations may be warranted to resolve this uncertainty.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 147 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 20%
Student > Bachelor 20 13%
Researcher 19 13%
Other 14 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 7%
Other 41 27%
Unknown 16 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 91 60%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Unspecified 2 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 24 16%