DESIGN: Parallel-group randomised controlled trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio.
SETTING: Two regional tertiary neonatal intensive care units.
PATIENTS: 150 preterm infants less than 35 weeks gestation with birth weight between 1.0 and 1.5 kg were recruited.
INTERVENTIONS: Infants were enrolled to either 2-hourly or 3-hourly interval feeding after randomisation. Blinding was not possible due to the nature of the intervention.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to achieve full enteral feeding (≥100 mL/kg/day). Secondary outcomes include time to regain birth weight, episode of feeding intolerance, peak serum bilirubin levels, duration of phototherapy, episode of necrotising enterocolitis, nosocomial sepsis and gastro-oesophageal reflux.
RESULTS: 72 infants were available for primary outcome analysis in each group as three were excluded due to death-three deaths in each group. The mean time to full enteral feeding was 11.3 days in the 3-hourly group and 10.2 days in the 2-hourly group (mean difference 1.1 days; 95% CI -0.4 to 2.5; p=0.14). The mean time to regain birth weight was shorter in 3-hourly group (12.9 vs 14.8 days, p=0.04). Other subgroup analyses did not reveal additional significant results. No difference in adverse events was found between the groups.
CONCLUSION: 3-hourly feeding was comparable with 2-hourly feeding to achieve full enteral feeding without any evidence of increased adverse events.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12611000676910, pre-result.
METHODS: A prospective cohort study of preterm infants with gestational age
METHODS: A randomized, unmasked study designed to determine major disability and death at 2 years in infants <32 weeks' gestation after delivery room resuscitation was initiated with either RA or 100% O2 and which were adjusted to target pulse oximetry of 65% to 95% at 5 minutes and 85% to 95% until NICU admission.
RESULTS: Of 6291 eligible patients, 292 were recruited and 287 (mean gestation: 28.9 weeks) were included in the analysis (RA: n = 144; 100% O2: n = 143). Recruitment ceased in June 2014, per the recommendations of the Data and Safety Monitoring Committee owing to loss of equipoise for the use of 100% O2. In non-prespecified analyses, infants <28 weeks who received RA resuscitation had higher hospital mortality (RA: 10 of 46 [22%]; than those given 100% O2: 3 of 54 [6%]; risk ratio: 3.9 [95% confidence interval: 1.1-13.4]; P = .01). Respiratory failure was the most common cause of death (n = 13).
CONCLUSIONS: Using RA to initiate resuscitation was associated with an increased risk of death in infants <28 weeks' gestation. This study was not a prespecified analysis, and it was underpowered to address this post hoc hypothesis reliably. Additional data are needed.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the effectiveness of co-bedding compared with separate (individual) care for stable preterm twins in the neonatal nursery in promoting growth and neurodevelopment and reducing short- and long-term morbidities, and to determine whether co-bedding is associated with significant adverse effects.As secondary objectives, we sought to evaluate effects of co-bedding via the following subgroup analyses: twin pairs with different weight ranges (very low birth weight [VLBW] < 1500 grams vs non-VLBW), twins with versus without significant growth discordance at birth, preterm versus borderline preterm twins, twins co-bedded in incubator versus cot at study entry, and twins randomized by twin pair versus neonatal unit.
SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group (CNRG). We used keywords and medical subject headings (MeSH) to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 2), MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE (hosted by EBSCOHOST), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and references cited in our short-listed articles, up to February 29, 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials with randomization by twin pair and/or by neonatal unit. We excluded cross-over studies.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using standard methods of the CNRG. Two review authors independently assessed the relevance and risk of bias of retrieved records. We contacted the authors of included studies to request important information missing from their published papers. We expressed our results using risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) when appropriate, along with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). We adjusted the unit of analysis from individual infants to twin pairs by averaging measurements for each twin pair (continuous outcomes) or by counting outcomes as positive if developed by either twin (dichotomous outcomes).
MAIN RESULTS: Six studies met the inclusion criteria; however, only five studies provided data for analysis. Four of the six included studies were small and had significant limitations in design. As each study reported outcomes differently, data for most outcomes were effectively contributed by a single study. Study authors reported no differences between co-bedded twins and twins receiving separate care in terms of rate of weight gain (MD 0.20 grams/kg/d, 95% CI -1.60 to 2.00; one study; 18 pairs of twins; evidence of low quality); apnea, bradycardia, and desaturation (A/B/D) episodes (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.18 to 4.05; one study; 62 pairs of twins; evidence of low quality); episodes in co-regulated states (MD 0.96, 95% CI -3.44 to 5.36; one study; three pairs of twins; evidence of very low quality); suspected or proven infection (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.31; three studies; 65 pairs of twins; evidence of very low quality); length of hospital stay (MD -4.90 days, 95% CI -35.23 to 25.43; one study; three pairs of twins; evidence of very low quality); and parental satisfaction measured on a scale of 0 to 55 (MD -0.38, 95% CI -4.49 to 3.73; one study; nine pairs of twins; evidence of moderate quality). Although co-bedded twins appeared to have lower pain scores 30 seconds after heel lance on a scale of 0 to 21 (MD -0.96, 95% CI -1.68 to -0.23; two studies; 117 pairs of twins; I(2) = 75%; evidence of low quality), they had higher pain scores 90 seconds after the procedure (MD 1.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.86; one study; 62 pairs of twins). Substantial heterogeneity in the outcome of infant pain response after heel prick at 30 seconds post procedure and conflicting results at 30 and 90 seconds post procedure precluded clear conclusions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on the benefits and harms of co-bedding for stable preterm twins was insufficient to permit recommendations for practice. Future studies must be adequately powered to detect clinically important differences in growth and neurodevelopment. Researchers should assess harms such as infection, along with medication errors and caregiver satisfaction.